Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

 

2008-08-15 06:14:58
PureFodder
Member
+225|6705

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Human rights groups repeatedly slam the actions of Hamas etc. They point out the crimes of both sides. They are therefore centrist as they complain about the abuses that both sides commit. If we are going to ignore the information coming from the UN, the ICJ, human rights groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Isreal as sources of information, then we know nothing about the conflict and can't therefore criticize Hamas either.
Fair enough...but don't call them unbiased.
They are unbiased against either side. If you actually look at their publications you'll find plenty of examples of human rights groups commending countries for reducing human rights violations, going completely against your arguments.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

You regularly use UN resolutions to justify the war in Iraq, so either you disagree with the UN and the resolutions against Iraq are meaningless or you agree with the UN and the mass votes agaisnt Israel show the opinion of the majority of the worlds populace.
No. I don't. Look at the overall context of the discussion where you see me referencing UN resolutions WRT Iraq--it's typically in response to some inane argument of "illegal" or "no UN mandate" bullshit. I have no use for the UN whatsoever.

PureFodder wrote:

The truth is that those who are against Isreali actions condem the Palestinian attacks on civillians, accepting the findings of human rights groups, and other international bodies. Those who support Israeli actions ignore the evidence that these groups provide, instead accepting the usually evidence free statments made by Israel. When Isreal carries out an assassination (itself a war crime) there is no trial beforehand, no evidence is presented before or after showing the targets guilt. Little care is taken to minimise civillian casualties. Most of the people assassinated are unarmed at the time of their deaths. Often people are assassinated despite the fact that their arrest would be quite a trivial matter. Anyone killed without trial and not currently engaging in a military action must be considered a civillian, making their deaths a purposeful attack on a civillian.
Quit generalizing. One can argue collateral damage issues and still not support Israeli actions in the OTs and such.

If you want to argue about assassinations by Mossad in other countries, that is a different topic. But...you have no idea how much or how little care is taken to minimize civilian casualties in any operation. You have no idea if there was a trial or finding regarding a specific assassination target.
Israeli groups such as B'Tselem state that there has never been a trial brefore or after an targetted assassination. "The descision to assassinate is made in back rooms with no judicial process to examine the intelligence information on which it is based. The target of assassination is not given a chance to present evidence in his defence or to refute the allegation against him."

There is a closed door meeting to decide if they are to be killed, the results of which have never been published. They have no chance to defend themselves or even see the evidence agaisnt them. No trial makes them innocent and unless they are directly engaging in a military action at the time they can only be considered to be innocent civillians. Do you think that dropping a one ton bomb on a densely populated civillian area, killing 14, wounding 140 is not unwarrented excessive force? If the US decided that murder suspects should have one ton bombs dropped on their house instead of being arrested would you support the move or totally condem it?

take the example of Thabet Thabet, from Amnesty international, state assassinations and other unlawful killings, london Feb 2001 p10
"... Dr thabet could have been arrested by the Israeli authorities if suspected of any offence without difficulty since he regularly drove to Nablus and each friday attended a mosque in Rar'un in [an Israeli-controlled area]"

Israels complete military dominace of the region and massive numbers of Palestinians arrested on a regular basis refutes the notion that Israel has no choice but to bomb these people and kill large numbers of nearby civillians.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

I, as most of the people against Israels actions, don't criticize just Isreal, but both sides.
Really? Must've missed that memo. All I ever see from you and others is anti-Israeli, never anything but lip service paid to the atrocities committed by Palestinian militants.

PureFodder wrote:

The pro-Israel people tend to criticize the Palestinian groups but roll out the apologetics over the murders, reckless endangerment of civillian lives, collective punishments, torture, kidnapping, property destruction, annexation, etc. comitted by Israel. You'll struggle to find anyone (possibly Rammunation) who doesn't state that firing rockets at cities is a terrible crime. The only actual discussion that goes on is over Israels crimes.
Please show where I (I can't speak for anyone else) have condoned murders of Palestinians by Israelis. Please show where I have condoned collective punishments. Please show where I have condoned Israeli torture of Palestinians. Please show where I have condoned kidnapping. Please show where I have condoned property destruction. Please show where I have condoned annexation.

You claim "reckless endangerment of civillian (sic) lives"...I'm arguing that it's not reckless on Israel's part. They attempt to limit civilian deaths as much as they can. If Israel were truly reckless in its approach, it would use carpet bombing of entire swaths of Gaza to eliminate Hamas--it doesn't. PGMs against point targets is hardly "reckless". It is Hamas that is putting Palestinian civilians' lives recklessly in danger by embedding their militant infrastructure in with civilian infrastructure in violation of the GC.

This discussion has been about the difference in intent that caused civilian deaths. Israel does not (generally) intend to cause Palestinian civilian deaths--if they could kill the militants without harming a single innocent civilian, they would. Hamas fully intends to cause Israeli civilian deaths. Period.
you seem happy to justify extradudicial assassinations on people who have recieved no trial and have had no evidence against them presented and are not carrying out any military action. They are therefore civillians under international law.

As far as Hamas etc. moving their operations away from civillian areas, remember that Gaza has a population density of 464 per sq km. It's one of the most densely populated places on the planet. Israel annexed most of the places that they could even remotely possibly do such a thing. Even if there were ample room, they'd likely be blown up by Israel (without trial) before they even got to the site. We rightly condem them for doing it anyway even if they have little choice. It doesn't excuse Israeli excessive force agaisnt them not killing civillians may by hard, but it's not an excuse. Two crimes don't make a right.

Israels continuing record shows an reckless disregard for the lives of innocent Palestinians. As further evidence look at what happens when Israeli soldiers do kill innocents. In the majority of cases they aren't investigated. If they are they usually get released. In the few cases where someone is convicted they rarely recieve sentences above a couple of months. If Israel cares so much about not killing civillians, why don't they do much of anything to prosecute the Israeli soldiers who kill innocents?

Take Israeli actions against violent protests (and non-violent ones) In no case has the IDF fired rubber or real bullets at a violent demonstration of Israeli Jews. This fairly clearly shows that they are able to sort out violent protests without shooting people if they so desire. Resorting to shooting at even non-violent Palestinian protests does occur.

As I said, the Israelis often have ample opportunity to arrest people, but choose to kill them and anyone who happens to be near them.

The reason for not carpet bombing the place is fairly straighforward. Nobody could possibly accept such an action and Isreal would find itself cut off from all foreign support, loose the billions of dollars of annual US aid and loose the US veto at the UN. It would be suicide. Killing a dozen people and claiming that one of them was a terrorist (without evidence) allows those who know little about the situation to try and justify the actions.
2008-08-15 06:25:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
This is fairly typical, although there is not always a journalist there to witness it.

'One weekday last year, at about three in the afternoon, Israeli armoured jeeps moved into the centre of Ramallah, pulling up outside the most popular hummus cafe.

In full view of passers-by, including children on their way back from school, the troops dragged a man in his early 20s out of the cafe. He was a wanted militant. They shot him - first in the legs, then stomach, then his head. '
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programm … 433063.stm
Fuck Israel
2008-08-15 06:25:44
Chrisimo
Member
+3|6172

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Okay FEOS, you seem to be quite knowledgeable on military matters so let me ask you if you were head of Hamas and no longer wanted to pursue the unconventional tactics we have discussed what would you do? Where would you base your weaponry, where would you sequest your troops, where would you launch your attacks on military and security targets from? Bearing in mind the state of the art nature of Israel's military and the high level of sophistication in their surveillance agencies.
How about stopping the 'war' for some years?
You mean lie down and accept your hardship? Are you sure you aren't French and not German?
So how does that fight go then? Any chance of winning it yet? Perhaps that hardship wouldn't be so hard after all if the fights would stop!? At least people would see how Israel reacts. Do they continue the war? Do they still supress the Palestinian People after some years of peace?

Or do some people perhaps simply don't want Israel to show that it really wants peace and is prepared to even give something for that? That would surely ruin some plans to wipe them off the map.
2008-08-15 06:34:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
So how does that fight go then? Any chance of winning it yet? Perhaps that hardship wouldn't be so hard after all if the fights would stop!? At least people would see how Israel reacts. Do they continue the war? Do they still supress the Palestinian People after some years of peace?
There have been numerous periods of peace, each time the Israelis manage to do something to provoke the Palestinians.

eg
'On September 28, the Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon, with a Likud party delegation, and surrounded by hundreds of Israeli riot police, visited the mosque compound of the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem.[20] The compound is the holiest site in Judaism and the third holiest site in Islam. Sharon did not actually go into the al-Aqsa Mosque, and went during normal tourist hours. The Temple Mount is also the holiest site in Judaism, of which the Western Wall is the last remnant of the Jewish Temple. The stated purpose for Sharon's visit of the compound was to assert the right of all Israelis to visit the Temple Mount; however, according to Likud spokesman Ofir Akounis, the purpose was to "show that under a Likud government [the Temple Mount] will remain under Israeli sovereignty."  In response to accusations by Ariel Sharon of government readiness to concede "Israeli sovereignty" over the site to Palestinians, the Israeli government gave Sharon permission to visit the area. When alerted of his intentions, senior Palestinian figures, such as Yassir Arafat, Saeb Erekat, and Faisal Husseini all asked Sharon to call off his visit.  The Palestinians, some 10 days earlier, had just observed their annual memorial day for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, conducted when Sharon was Defense Minister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Int … mple_Mount

Even now, during a ceasefire, the Israelis and Americans continue to expect the Palestinians to make 'concessions' to be allowed to live on a small part of their land under continued Israeli domination.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7555990.stm
'Israel has offered a peace deal to the Palestinians which would annex 7.3% of the West Bank and keep the largest settlements, Israeli reports say.
In return the Palestinians would be given land equivalent to 5.4% of the West Bank in the Negev desert, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.

Palestinian officials confirmed that such a plan had been put forward, but called it totally unacceptable.

The two sides have been in peace talks sponsored by the US since November.
Israel wants a new border similar to the route of the barrier it is currently building in and around the West Bank, Haaretz reports.

The proposed deal also covers Palestinian refugees and security arrangements, as well as the future of Gaza, Haaretz says, but not the issue of East Jerusalem and the ring of settlements around it.'
Fuck Israel
2008-08-15 06:43:13
Chrisimo
Member
+3|6172

Dilbert_X wrote:

There have been numerous periods of peace, each time the Israelis manage to do something to provoke the Palestinians.
Do you want to say that the Palestinians never harmed an ongoing peace process? It was always the Isralis fault?

Again I ask: How's that war going? Any chance of winning yet?
Perhaps it is better to watch your children grow up (even if it is among Jews) instead of seeing them die in a war you cannot win.
2008-08-15 07:06:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Human rights groups reports are hardly objective or non-biased. They are always biased to report something as a human rights violation, whether it truly is or not.
Wow. So human rights groups are the enemy now?
And anyone who reports factually is biased - but only when they are criticising Israel?
I never said either of those things. Do YOU consider anyone who is not objective or unbiased to be an enemy?

Reporting facts is completely different than reporting an event and then speculating/spinning its cause or reporting without the entire context. Human rights groups do that all the time, so long as it supports their agenda. If they couldn't find human rights abuses to report, they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?

Dilbert_X wrote:

The building could have very easily hit four times due to errant targeting or a technical glitch. It just depends on if those were in multiple attacks or all in one strike. If it were multiple attacks over multiple days, then there would be some room for discussion of Israeli intent.
'BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- The U.N. observers killed when an Israeli bomb hit their bunker in Lebanon Tuesday called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that aerial attacks were getting close to their position, a U.N. officer said.

After each call, the Israeli officer promised to have the bombing stopped, an officer at the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) base in Noqoura said.

Finally, an Israeli bomb exploded directly on the U.N. post near Khiyam, killing four U.N. observers from Austria, Finland, Canada and China, the U.N. officer said.'
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … observers/
'Jane Lute, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, told the Security Council that the post, which is three miles (5km) from an Israeli artillery position, came under close fire 21 times on Tuesday, suffering 12 hits within 100 metres and four direct hits. Contact was lost with the four peacekeepers inside at 7.17pm Ms Lute said that she and Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General, called Israel’s mission to the UN in New York “reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling”.

She said that Unifil secured safe passage for two armoured personnel carriers, which arrived at 9.30pm and found the shelter collapsed and severe damage to the rest of the position. Despite the agreement, she said, Israel attacked the carriers.

Dermot Ahern, the Irish Foreign Minister, said that Israeli troops fired on the Egyptian UN soldiers sent to dig out the bodies. “(It) raises questions about whether this was an accident,” he said. '
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 693450.ece
From the notoriously anti-semitic Time Newspaper

Fog of war eh?
Yes. But it's understandable that you wouldn't get it. You have no background in martial studies nor do you bother to compare to other friendly-fire incidents, as that wouldn't support your claim.

Dilbert_X wrote:

That shit is abhorrent, but irrelevant to the argument at hand.
B-b-b-b-b-b-ut surely those women 'brought it on themselves'?
Or did they get themselves into bonded prostitution just to 'make the Israelis look bad'?
Again with the logical fallacies. The two situations are not remotely similar, no matter how hard (and poorly) you try to make them so.

Dilbert_X wrote:

This discussion has been about the difference in intent that caused civilian deaths. Israel does not (generally) intend to cause Palestinian civilian deaths--if they could kill the militants without harming a single innocent civilian, they would. Hamas fully intends to cause Israeli civilian deaths. Period.
Bullshit.
The Israelis don't give a flying fuck about civilians.
If they did the Prime Minister of Israel wouldn't see killing 14 civilians, including a 2 month old baby, while in the course of summarily executing a suspected militant as an event worth celebrating.
'In Israel, an early celebration of the killing of Sheik Shehada quickly turned into an exercise in political damage control. Mr. Sharon initially called the airstrike ''one of our major successes.'''
They were celebrating the death of the Sheik, not the deaths of the civilians, you nitwit.

If the Israelis didn't give a flying fuck about civilians, they would carpet bomb the ever loving shit out of Gaza. Seen much carpet-bombing there? No, you haven't. Point targets with PGMs. As compared to unguided rockets launched into areas where only civilians live.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Israelis intend to kill Palestinians, civilian or not, and as many as possible. If they can do it under the cloak of targeting militants that makes it much easier to sell to the outside world.
A wild-assed claim that you can't back up with anything approaching objective facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hamas, like Hezbollah, have come into existence solely as a result of Israeli actions.

Hamas, like Hezbollah, have a better ratio of military vs civilian kills than the IDF.
And neither target children in the way the IDF do.

This alone blows your argument out of the sky.
YGBFSM. Hamas and Hezbollah don't target children? Have you completely detached from reality?

How can you back up your claim about mil/civ kill ratios when neither Hamas nor Hezbollah wear anything identifying them as belonging to those groups? That's the convenient part of their violations of the GC: Israel can kill an entire cell of Hamas or Hezbollah militants (to include women) and then, because they don't wear distinctive uniforms (again, in violation of the GC), they can bring in the press and claim Israel killed a bunch of innocent basket-weavers and sheep like you will buy it hook, line, and sinker because it fits your biased world view.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-15 07:33:17
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

unless they are directly engaging in a military action at the time they can only be considered to be innocent civillians.
Bullshit. If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians". There is no statute of limitation on murder OR terrorism. The fact that some douchebag happened to be watching cartoons and not planting a bomb when he got killed does not make an iota of difference as to whether he is a combatant or not.

PureFodder wrote:

Do you think that dropping a one ton bomb on a densely populated civillian area, killing 14, wounding 140 is not unwarrented excessive force? If the US decided that murder suspects should have one ton bombs dropped on their house instead of being arrested would you support the move or totally condem it?
Generally, I would condemn it. It depends on the situation. Is that the only way to take the guy out? Why is he hiding in a congested civilian area and not abiding by GC rules to remain separate from the civilian population? Are the civilians actively abetting his actions? If so, they are no longer non-combatants under international law.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

I, as most of the people against Israels actions, don't criticize just Isreal, but both sides.
Really? Must've missed that memo. All I ever see from you and others is anti-Israeli, never anything but lip service paid to the atrocities committed by Palestinian militants.

PureFodder wrote:

The pro-Israel people tend to criticize the Palestinian groups but roll out the apologetics over the murders, reckless endangerment of civillian lives, collective punishments, torture, kidnapping, property destruction, annexation, etc. comitted by Israel. You'll struggle to find anyone (possibly Rammunation) who doesn't state that firing rockets at cities is a terrible crime. The only actual discussion that goes on is over Israels crimes.
Please show where I (I can't speak for anyone else) have condoned murders of Palestinians by Israelis. Please show where I have condoned collective punishments. Please show where I have condoned Israeli torture of Palestinians. Please show where I have condoned kidnapping. Please show where I have condoned property destruction. Please show where I have condoned annexation.

You claim "reckless endangerment of civillian (sic) lives"...I'm arguing that it's not reckless on Israel's part. They attempt to limit civilian deaths as much as they can. If Israel were truly reckless in its approach, it would use carpet bombing of entire swaths of Gaza to eliminate Hamas--it doesn't. PGMs against point targets is hardly "reckless". It is Hamas that is putting Palestinian civilians' lives recklessly in danger by embedding their militant infrastructure in with civilian infrastructure in violation of the GC.

This discussion has been about the difference in intent that caused civilian deaths. Israel does not (generally) intend to cause Palestinian civilian deaths--if they could kill the militants without harming a single innocent civilian, they would. Hamas fully intends to cause Israeli civilian deaths. Period.
you seem happy to justify extradudicial assassinations on people who have recieved no trial and have had no evidence against them presented and are not carrying out any military action. They are therefore civillians under international law.
Exactly where have I justified extradudicial (sic) assassinations? Again, just because someone isn't in the act of firing on the IDF, it doesn't mean they are a non-combatant under international law.

And again, you have no proof that there wasn't a trial (possibly in absentia) or no evidence against the person. In fact, for the person to be targeted, there HAD to be SOME evidence, otherwise they wouldn't be targeted to begin with.

PureFodder wrote:

As far as Hamas etc. moving their operations away from civillian areas, remember that Gaza has a population density of 464 per sq km. It's one of the most densely populated places on the planet. Israel annexed most of the places that they could even remotely possibly do such a thing. Even if there were ample room, they'd likely be blown up by Israel (without trial) before they even got to the site. We rightly condem them for doing it anyway even if they have little choice. It doesn't excuse Israeli excessive force agaisnt them not killing civillians may by hard, but it's not an excuse. Two crimes don't make a right.
So Israel should do nothing and allow their civilians to be killed and wounded by militants operating in Gaza? Nice double-standard you have there.

Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. They can create exclusion zones and move civilians out of them, providing them with other housing. They don't. Why do you think that is?

PureFodder wrote:

Israels continuing record shows an reckless disregard for the lives of innocent Palestinians. As further evidence look at what happens when Israeli soldiers do kill innocents. In the majority of cases they aren't investigated. If they are they usually get released. In the few cases where someone is convicted they rarely recieve sentences above a couple of months. If Israel cares so much about not killing civillians, why don't they do much of anything to prosecute the Israeli soldiers who kill innocents?
How many Palestinians get investigated or prosecuted by Hamas for launching rockets into civilian areas or bombing cafes/buses? Rarely is certainly more often than never.

PureFodder wrote:

Take Israeli actions against violent protests (and non-violent ones) In no case has the IDF fired rubber or real bullets at a violent demonstration of Israeli Jews. This fairly clearly shows that they are able to sort out violent protests without shooting people if they so desire. Resorting to shooting at even non-violent Palestinian protests does occur.

As I said, the Israelis often have ample opportunity to arrest people, but choose to kill them and anyone who happens to be near them.
So there aren't any Palestinian militants in Israeli prisons? Someone should tell Hamas and Hezbollah that.

PureFodder wrote:

The reason for not carpet bombing the place is fairly straighforward. Nobody could possibly accept such an action and Isreal would find itself cut off from all foreign support, loose the billions of dollars of annual US aid and loose the US veto at the UN. It would be suicide. Killing a dozen people and claiming that one of them was a terrorist (without evidence) allows those who know little about the situation to try and justify the actions.
Get off you high horse. You know no more about the situation than anyone else who doesn't live there. You certainly know fuckall about international law with regard to military targeting and the determination of combatant status--you proved that in your post.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-15 10:35:38
PureFodder
Member
+225|6705

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

unless they are directly engaging in a military action at the time they can only be considered to be innocent civillians.
Bullshit. If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians". There is no statute of limitation on murder OR terrorism. The fact that some douchebag happened to be watching cartoons and not planting a bomb when he got killed does not make an iota of difference as to whether he is a combatant or not.
Proove that all of the people that were assassinated by Israel were guilty and have engaged in military or terrorist action.

oh wait, you can't as there was no trial and the evidence against them was never submitted to the public. Your argument is completely based on the assumption that they are guilty of being a terrorist, something for which there is no proof available. You simply can't condem someone to death for crimes if you refuse to bother with a trial first. The point of innocent until proven guilty is that they must be considered innocent until proven guilty. It's kind of the basis of law. All I'm asking is that Israel show all of the evidence and have a public trial with a compitent defence lawyer and the option for the defendent to turn up and argue his case. The only exception is if they are posing a clear imminent risk to someone.

Israel kills people that have not recieved a trial when they are posing no threat to anyone. That makes them innocent civillians, killing them is a war crime. You seem happy to condem people to death without actually finding out if they are in fact guilty of a crime. Most of them may well have committed crimes, but without proof and a trial they must be considered innocent. Would you accept the US introducing a policy of deciding to assassinate Americans based on closed doors decisions, no public trial and no submission of any evidence?

There's a significant difference between a terrorist and a suspected terrorist that legally must be assumed to be a civillian. It's called a trial.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Do you think that dropping a one ton bomb on a densely populated civillian area, killing 14, wounding 140 is not unwarrented excessive force? If the US decided that murder suspects should have one ton bombs dropped on their house instead of being arrested would you support the move or totally condem it?
Generally, I would condemn it. It depends on the situation. Is that the only way to take the guy out? Why is he hiding in a congested civilian area and not abiding by GC rules to remain separate from the civilian population? Are the civilians actively abetting his actions? If so, they are no longer non-combatants under international law.
Dropping a one ton bomb on a civillian area is never the only way to get someone, especially when you have absolute military contol of the region and can arrest people at will.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Really? Must've missed that memo. All I ever see from you and others is anti-Israeli, never anything but lip service paid to the atrocities committed by Palestinian militants.


Please show where I (I can't speak for anyone else) have condoned murders of Palestinians by Israelis. Please show where I have condoned collective punishments. Please show where I have condoned Israeli torture of Palestinians. Please show where I have condoned kidnapping. Please show where I have condoned property destruction. Please show where I have condoned annexation.

You claim "reckless endangerment of civillian (sic) lives"...I'm arguing that it's not reckless on Israel's part. They attempt to limit civilian deaths as much as they can. If Israel were truly reckless in its approach, it would use carpet bombing of entire swaths of Gaza to eliminate Hamas--it doesn't. PGMs against point targets is hardly "reckless". It is Hamas that is putting Palestinian civilians' lives recklessly in danger by embedding their militant infrastructure in with civilian infrastructure in violation of the GC.

This discussion has been about the difference in intent that caused civilian deaths. Israel does not (generally) intend to cause Palestinian civilian deaths--if they could kill the militants without harming a single innocent civilian, they would. Hamas fully intends to cause Israeli civilian deaths. Period.
you seem happy to justify extradudicial assassinations on people who have recieved no trial and have had no evidence against them presented and are not carrying out any military action. They are therefore civillians under international law.
Exactly where have I justified extradudicial (sic) assassinations? Again, just because someone isn't in the act of firing on the IDF, it doesn't mean they are a non-combatant under international law.

And again, you have no proof that there wasn't a trial (possibly in absentia) or no evidence against the person. In fact, for the person to be targeted, there HAD to be SOME evidence, otherwise they wouldn't be targeted to begin with.
There is zero evidence for any of these assassinated people ever having a fair trial. The evidence agaisnt these people has NEVER been made public according to all newspapers and Israeli and international human rights groups. They have NEVER had a chance to defend themselves in court. You have no proof that there ever has been a trial. Nobody has any proof. Based on innocent until proven guilty, all of the assassinated people must therefore be considered not guilty until Israel shows the evidence and a court can rule on the case. As that's NEVER happened, all of them must be assumed to be not guilty until they have their day in court. Once Israel prooves that they are terrorists then we can talk.

On another point, using your argument (If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians".) as pretty well the entire adult male population of Israel is technically in the military and has at some point served, they mix in with the civillian populace, making all attacks against the Israeli civillian populace justified as they will kill soldiers who are not currently engaged in the conflict but have done in the past who are hiding amongst the civillian populace. According to your argument that is.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

As far as Hamas etc. moving their operations away from civillian areas, remember that Gaza has a population density of 464 per sq km. It's one of the most densely populated places on the planet. Israel annexed most of the places that they could even remotely possibly do such a thing. Even if there were ample room, they'd likely be blown up by Israel (without trial) before they even got to the site. We rightly condem them for doing it anyway even if they have little choice. It doesn't excuse Israeli excessive force agaisnt them not killing civillians may by hard, but it's not an excuse. Two crimes don't make a right.
So Israel should do nothing and allow their civilians to be killed and wounded by militants operating in Gaza? Nice double-standard you have there.

Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. They can create exclusion zones and move civilians out of them, providing them with other housing. They don't. Why do you think that is?
Israel should try to prevent the attacks in measured response to the damage they are inflicting and with the upmost efforst to avoid innocent casualties. The rocket attacks kill a couple of innocent people a year. The efforts to stop the rocket attacks kill scores of innocents a year. That's disproportionate. It's similar to why we don't give grenades to cops. Clearly they'd be better at tackling bad guys, but the harm they inflict to innocents would be too severe to justify the actions. As I've said before, the utter military dominance of Israel gives them plenty of options besided bombings that could reduce the numbers of casualties. Israel chooses bombing which they know full well will kill innocent civillians.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Israels continuing record shows an reckless disregard for the lives of innocent Palestinians. As further evidence look at what happens when Israeli soldiers do kill innocents. In the majority of cases they aren't investigated. If they are they usually get released. In the few cases where someone is convicted they rarely recieve sentences above a couple of months. If Israel cares so much about not killing civillians, why don't they do much of anything to prosecute the Israeli soldiers who kill innocents?
How many Palestinians get investigated or prosecuted by Hamas for launching rockets into civilian areas or bombing cafes/buses? Rarely is certainly more often than never.
So you accept the position that neither side cares much about civillian deaths and retract your statement that Israel does everything it can to prevent civillian casualties?

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Take Israeli actions against violent protests (and non-violent ones) In no case has the IDF fired rubber or real bullets at a violent demonstration of Israeli Jews. This fairly clearly shows that they are able to sort out violent protests without shooting people if they so desire. Resorting to shooting at even non-violent Palestinian protests does occur.

As I said, the Israelis often have ample opportunity to arrest people, but choose to kill them and anyone who happens to be near them.
So there aren't any Palestinian militants in Israeli prisons? Someone should tell Hamas and Hezbollah that.
I take it you therefore accept that Isreal unnessesarily uses force against Palestinians then as you aren't refuting the claims.
"the many cases in which the Israeli military abducted wanted Palestinians...shows that the Israeli military is able, when it so decides, to capture wanted persons. Therfore the assassinating them is clearly not the only possible act available" - PCATI and LAW, assassination policy, p.73
"Under the Israeli Penal Code the assassination of wanted Palestinians by the state is a "premeditated act of murder," while under international law in constitutes a war crime." - Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah p 137

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The reason for not carpet bombing the place is fairly straighforward. Nobody could possibly accept such an action and Isreal would find itself cut off from all foreign support, loose the billions of dollars of annual US aid and loose the US veto at the UN. It would be suicide. Killing a dozen people and claiming that one of them was a terrorist (without evidence) allows those who know little about the situation to try and justify the actions.
Get off you high horse. You know no more about the situation than anyone else who doesn't live there. You certainly know fuckall about international law with regard to military targeting and the determination of combatant status--you proved that in your post.
No. You seem not to know about the whole innocent until proven guilty part of international law. Israel does not consider them combatants, and therefore they are civillians and must recieve a trial. As you refuse to actually comment or refute what I said, I'll assume that you can't. I've read reports from people who have actually lived there, read scholarly articles based on the primary evidence, human rights reports and ICJ findings. I'm basing my arguments on them, you seem to be basing you arguments on nothing other than the broad assumption that Israel is innocent and Palestinians are guilty and you can execute people without trial.

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

   1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
   2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
          * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
          * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
          * that of carrying arms openly;
          * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
   4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

According to the geneva convention, they aren't combatants. You can't (rightfully) complain that they don't have a recognizable uniform, aren't openly carrying arms and fail to conduct their operations in any way in accordance with the laws and customs of war and also claim that they are combatants.
2008-08-15 11:05:51
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What are you talking about?
Apply what logic? I've outlined how it's completely different. The Israelis screwed the Palestinians over, and so for them to be aggrieved and take it out on the Israelis is understandable. The Jews were screwed over by lots of people, NOT the Palestinians - so it's a totally different scenario.

Can you not see the vast difference.

Acts committed by those involved in the conflict are relevant. Any others are not.
So it's OK that Hamas targets civilians?

If Hamas would target Israeli military/government personnel/facilities as the rule rather than the exception, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Can you not see the vast difference?
Nice changing of the subject to avoid the entire point.

FEOS wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Centrism is looking at both sides objectively. You and those like you are just as guilty of NOT doing that as we in the US are.
First off that's not what centrism is:
centrism

noun
a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action
Taking a moderate position between the extremes of left and right. The US is one extreme, the ME is another, Europe's position is not only the middle ground, but is also moderate and so satisfies every criteria for being centrist.
Oh FFS, I wasn't looking at a fucking Webster's or Oxford Unabridged when I wrote the damn post. You know exactly what I meant.

Europe's position IS NOT the middle ground, if this board is any indication of Europe's position. Excusing Palestinian attacks against civilians is hardly centrist...it's much more closely aligned to the ME position.
Then what is the middle ground? Europes position is absolutely centrist and the fact you can't see that simply shows you must not have had much, if any, exposure to European media coverage of the conflict.

As for looking at a dictionary, perhaps you should after asserting you know what a word means once you've been told you've got the meaning wrong.

FEOS wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Secondly, that's not the case at all - I'm very familiar with the history surrounding all of this and prior to that I was a supporter of the Israelis, it's only after I've actually learnt about this conflict that I've found out what a bunch of despicable cunts they are and have been to the Palestinians ever since the Jewish agency became active in Palestine.
Well...how very centrist of you.
Where did I say I was centrist? I look at both sides and assess what I see based on the 20th century history of the region. The Israelis are to blame for the conflict, by the appalling way they acted in the 30-40 year build up to the first Arab-Israeli war. Since then, both sides have behaved very badly and there is little to distinguish between the two - which is why I look to the origins of the conflict when trying to determine who is more at fault.
2008-08-15 11:13:00
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

san4 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

san4 wrote:


Actually, the partition plan was the beginning of a Palestinian state. But a choice was made that violence was preferable. The fact that someone other than the Palestinians made that choice does not make it any less stupid or harmful to their cause. That same choice has been made repeatedly over the last 60 years by the Palestinians and by others on their behalf.

Until now, I have never heard anyone say that the Palestinians are better off without a state of their own.
What a ridiculous statement. (I love the way you start out with "actually" as though you're about to contradict something I've said and then don't, but phrase it to give that impression)

So you are saying the Palestinians should have taken an offer they had no option of accepting?

As for them taking that same choice repeatedly over the past 60 years, that's obviously complete gibberish - since they haven't had an option to.


How about the Israelis just abide by international law? Ever heard of the right of return?
You are saying the Palestinians never had the option of accepting any partition plan? From the 1950's to 2008?
No, I'm not. I'm saying they haven't had the chance of accepting anything resembling the 1948 partition plan, ever. They couldn't accept it when it was offered - through no fault of Israels or of the Palestinian people - it was all the surrounding Arab states on a land grab mission, which was a very stupid thing for them to attempt - since everyone knew they didn't have a hope in hell of winning.

For that, the Palestinian people have their neighbours to blame - not really Israel, although some blame can be laid with them.
2008-08-15 13:34:08
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

unless they are directly engaging in a military action at the time they can only be considered to be innocent civillians.
Bullshit. If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians". There is no statute of limitation on murder OR terrorism. The fact that some douchebag happened to be watching cartoons and not planting a bomb when he got killed does not make an iota of difference as to whether he is a combatant or not.
Proove that all of the people that were assassinated by Israel were guilty and have engaged in military or terrorist action.
Prove that they haven't. You can't, just as I can't prove otherwise. And that's because neither of us was involved in any of those cases to be able to speak authoritatively about any of them.

And you've completely missed the point I was making. You are applying a temporal limit to whether one is a combatant where there is none. It is a limit of individual action and participation, not time.

PureFodder wrote:

There's a significant difference between a terrorist and a suspected terrorist that legally must be assumed to be a civillian. It's called a trial.
No...it's called the actions of that individual.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Do you think that dropping a one ton bomb on a densely populated civillian area, killing 14, wounding 140 is not unwarrented excessive force? If the US decided that murder suspects should have one ton bombs dropped on their house instead of being arrested would you support the move or totally condem it?
Generally, I would condemn it. It depends on the situation. Is that the only way to take the guy out? Why is he hiding in a congested civilian area and not abiding by GC rules to remain separate from the civilian population? Are the civilians actively abetting his actions? If so, they are no longer non-combatants under international law.
Dropping a one ton bomb on a civillian area is never the only way to get someone, especially when you have absolute military contol of the region and can arrest people at will.
So Israel has "absolute military control" of Gaza? So I guess Israeli police can just walk in, unarmed, and arrest whomever they need to without any risk to their lives from Hamas? Wow. I guess we have all been misinformed. You should really let other people know that stuff and share your sources.

PureFodder wrote:

There is zero evidence for any of these assassinated people ever having a fair trial. The evidence agaisnt these people has NEVER been made public according to all newspapers and Israeli and international human rights groups. They have NEVER had a chance to defend themselves in court. You have no proof that there ever has been a trial. Nobody has any proof. Based on innocent until proven guilty, all of the assassinated people must therefore be considered not guilty until Israel shows the evidence and a court can rule on the case. As that's NEVER happened, all of them must be assumed to be not guilty until they have their day in court. Once Israel prooves that they are terrorists then we can talk.
So are we talking about Israeli military strikes against Gaza or are we talking about Mossad assassinations? Just trying to keep track here.

PureFodder wrote:

On another point, using your argument (If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians".) as pretty well the entire adult male population of Israel is technically in the military and has at some point served, they mix in with the civillian populace, making all attacks against the Israeli civillian populace justified as they will kill soldiers who are not currently engaged in the conflict but have done in the past who are hiding amongst the civillian populace. According to your argument that is.
Nice effort at twisting words when you damn good and well what the meaning and context was. The Israelis you mention are not CURRENTLY soldiers. The Palestinians you refer to were CURRENTLY involved in the Hamas militia. If Hamas wants to send assassination squads against SPECIFIC former Israeli soldiers for actions those SPECIFIC individuals took when they were serving, then your argument would hold. As they do not do that, but rather target RANDOM Israeli civilians, whom Hamas has no idea whether or not they served in ANY capacity, your argument does not hold.

But decent try.

PureFodder wrote:

Israel should try to prevent the attacks in measured response to the damage they are inflicting and with the upmost efforst to avoid innocent casualties. The rocket attacks kill a couple of innocent people a year. The efforts to stop the rocket attacks kill scores of innocents a year. That's disproportionate. It's similar to why we don't give grenades to cops. Clearly they'd be better at tackling bad guys, but the harm they inflict to innocents would be too severe to justify the actions. As I've said before, the utter military dominance of Israel gives them plenty of options besided bombings that could reduce the numbers of casualties. Israel chooses bombing which they know full well will kill innocent civillians.
So again...Israeli police can just waltz in to Gaza and arrest whomever they need to? Of course they can't. That leaves other, less desirable options. The number of civilian deaths is due strictly to Hamas' violation of the GC by incorporating their militant infrastructure with civilian infrastructure. If the militant infrastructure weren't there, the civilian infrastructure (and therefore innocent civilians) wouldn't be at risk. Hamas knows this full well and makes the most of it...in violation of the GC.

But I only hear you complaining about Israeli violations. Very centrist and objective, I must say.

PureFodder wrote:

So you accept the position that neither side cares much about civillian deaths and retract your statement that Israel does everything it can to prevent civillian casualties?
And just how would you reach that ridiculous conclusion based on what I said? Both sides care about civilian deaths: the IDF cares about limiting them as much as they can, while Hamas cares about inflicting them as much as they can.

PureFodder wrote:

TI take it you therefore accept that Isreal unnessesarily uses force against Palestinians then as you aren't refuting the claims.
Just what have we been doing here? Are you paying attention?

PureFodder wrote:

"the many cases in which the Israeli military abducted wanted Palestinians...shows that the Israeli military is able, when it so decides, to capture wanted persons. Therfore the assassinating them is clearly not the only possible act available" - PCATI and LAW, assassination policy, p.73
"Under the Israeli Penal Code the assassination of wanted Palestinians by the state is a "premeditated act of murder," while under international law in constitutes a war crime." - Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah p 137
Again...are we talking about Mossad assassinations or IDF strikes? You keep mixing the two topics.

PureFodder wrote:

No. You seem not to know about the whole innocent until proven guilty part of international law. Israel does not consider them combatants, and therefore they are civillians and must recieve a trial. As you refuse to actually comment or refute what I said, I'll assume that you can't. I've read reports from people who have actually lived there, read scholarly articles based on the primary evidence, human rights reports and ICJ findings. I'm basing my arguments on them, you seem to be basing you arguments on nothing other than the broad assumption that Israel is innocent and Palestinians are guilty and you can execute people without trial.
And it appears you have your head up that high horse's ass.

Israel absolutely does consider the Hamas militants to be combatants. You don't hold trials to determine which enemy position to take down. At least not in the real world.

Believe it or not, I've read many of the same things, as well as other publications that have performed objective analyses of IDF operations in both Gaza and S. Lebanon. They analyzed targeting methodologies, weapon choices (to include fuse settings), target ID criteria, and a host of other technical data. So yeah...just "broad assumptions".

Make sure you don't drown the next time it rains, with your nose up in the air like that.

PureFodder wrote:

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

   1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
   2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
          * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
          * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
          * that of carrying arms openly;
          * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
   4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

According to the geneva convention, they aren't combatants. You can't (rightfully) complain that they don't have a recognizable uniform, aren't openly carrying arms and fail to conduct their operations in any way in accordance with the laws and customs of war and also claim that they are combatants.
What are you talking about POW status for? We're talking about whether someone is considered a combatant or not. Not even sure why you care about POW status, since according to you, there aren't any Palestinians in Israeli prisons, anyway.

BTW: Item #2 describes the Hamas militia members...and it also defines them as a combatant under Art III of the GC. However, the last sub-bullet of item #2 and the last phrase of #4 also shows that Hamas behaves unlawfully. That would be against international law...you know that thing that apparently only Israel does?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-15 13:41:22
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What are you talking about?
Apply what logic? I've outlined how it's completely different. The Israelis screwed the Palestinians over, and so for them to be aggrieved and take it out on the Israelis is understandable. The Jews were screwed over by lots of people, NOT the Palestinians - so it's a totally different scenario.

Can you not see the vast difference.

Acts committed by those involved in the conflict are relevant. Any others are not.
So it's OK that Hamas targets civilians?

If Hamas would target Israeli military/government personnel/facilities as the rule rather than the exception, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Can you not see the vast difference?
Nice changing of the subject to avoid the entire point.
There was no changing of the subject...only applying your argument evenly. No wonder you didn't recognize it.

And, based on your logic, it would seem that the Pals would be completely justified in targeting Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian civilians, since all those countries have screwed over the Palestinian people by forcing them to live in ghetto-like conditions on their soil.

Berster7 wrote:

Then what is the middle ground? Europes position is absolutely centrist and the fact you can't see that simply shows you must not have had much, if any, exposure to European media coverage of the conflict.

As for looking at a dictionary, perhaps you should after asserting you know what a word means once you've been told you've got the meaning wrong.
Because I wasn't applying a dictionary definition to the term. This isn't fucking English class. It's a debate forum.

Please describe how taking one side over the other--particularly when the side you are taking advocates the targeting and killing of innocent civilians--is centrist.

Berster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Secondly, that's not the case at all - I'm very familiar with the history surrounding all of this and prior to that I was a supporter of the Israelis, it's only after I've actually learnt about this conflict that I've found out what a bunch of despicable cunts they are and have been to the Palestinians ever since the Jewish agency became active in Palestine.
Well...how very centrist of you.
Where did I say I was centrist? I look at both sides and assess what I see based on the 20th century history of the region. The Israelis are to blame for the conflict, by the appalling way they acted in the 30-40 year build up to the first Arab-Israeli war. Since then, both sides have behaved very badly and there is little to distinguish between the two - which is why I look to the origins of the conflict when trying to determine who is more at fault.
Well at least you admit your bias. And you further admit that you side with the ME view. At least you're honest about it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-16 02:35:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
Reporting facts is completely different than reporting an event and then speculating/spinning its cause or reporting without the entire context. Human rights groups do that all the time, so long as it supports their agenda. If they couldn't find human rights abuses to report, they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?
You're nuts.
Yes. But it's understandable that you wouldn't get it. You have no background in martial studies nor do you bother to compare to other friendly-fire incidents, as that wouldn't support your claim.
I see.
In summary:
The Israelis bombed a well known UN outpost
- Over a period of six hours
- Despite six specific warnings they were bombing a UN outpost and which they acknowledge they received.
Culminating in a direct hit from a precision guided weapon.
They then agreed to let UN vehicles in, but fired on them too.
They then fired on the UN personnel trying to retrieve the bodies.

What is it I'm supposed to get exactly?
If the Israelis didn't give a flying fuck about civilians, they would carpet bomb the ever loving shit out of Gaza.
They would if they could, but the international community, even the Americans, wouldn't let them get away with it.
Much easier to pick the Palestinians off here and there, when they respond shout 'Terrorist!' and pick off a few more.
How can you back up your claim about mil/civ kill ratios when neither Hamas nor Hezbollah wear anything identifying them as belonging to those groups?
Well I'm fairly sure women and children don't fit that category.
There is no statute of limitation on murder OR terrorism.
There are pesky things which say it has to be proven before a court of law, trials need to be fair, summary executions aren't permitted etc.
Get off you high horse. You know no more about the situation than anyone else who doesn't live there. You certainly know fuckall about international law with regard to military targeting and the determination of combatant status--you proved that in your post.
You seem stressed, why don't you put your training bra on and go for a jog?

You seem to know bugger all about the Geneva Convention, ICHR etc considering you claim to work at the Pentagon.

Considering your totally biased and one sided world view you would be unable to apply it objectively even if you did have detailed knowledge.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-16 03:09:34)

Fuck Israel
2008-08-16 03:06:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What are you talking about?
Apply what logic? I've outlined how it's completely different. The Israelis screwed the Palestinians over, and so for them to be aggrieved and take it out on the Israelis is understandable. The Jews were screwed over by lots of people, NOT the Palestinians - so it's a totally different scenario.

Can you not see the vast difference.

Acts committed by those involved in the conflict are relevant. Any others are not.
So it's OK that Hamas targets civilians?

If Hamas would target Israeli military/government personnel/facilities as the rule rather than the exception, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Can you not see the vast difference?
Nice changing of the subject to avoid the entire point.
There was no changing of the subject...only applying your argument evenly. No wonder you didn't recognize it.

And, based on your logic, it would seem that the Pals would be completely justified in targeting Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian civilians, since all those countries have screwed over the Palestinian people by forcing them to live in ghetto-like conditions on their soil.
Not at all. That wouldn't be like for like now would it?

The Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptians haven't deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians, so there would be no case for it whatsoever. Think about it before making these rash statements. The Israelis have targeted Palestinian civilians from very early on. They started the terrorism, groups like the Irgun were just that, dedicated terrorist groups that were there to kill civilians with quite similar methods to the ones the Palestinians employ today. Bombs strapped to donkeys in busy Arab market places, how is that different to suicide bombers on buses and the like?

The Palestinians are simply using the same tactics that they have seen the Israelis use so successfully to gain control of their country, throw them out of it and then block all their legal rights to return there, forcing them to live in refugee camps.

FEOS wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Then what is the middle ground? Europes position is absolutely centrist and the fact you can't see that simply shows you must not have had much, if any, exposure to European media coverage of the conflict.

As for looking at a dictionary, perhaps you should after asserting you know what a word means once you've been told you've got the meaning wrong.
Because I wasn't applying a dictionary definition to the term. This isn't fucking English class. It's a debate forum.

Please describe how taking one side over the other--particularly when the side you are taking advocates the targeting and killing of innocent civilians--is centrist.
Dictionary definitions are what words mean. If you want to make up your own meanings that no one else understands because they are not standardised, then that's just silly. I can understand you getting it wrong, that's perfectly normal. But to get it wrong and then persist in saying your interpretation of it is correct, shows a counter-productive level of wilful ignorance - it only takes a few seconds to check a definition.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other. That's what the US does. The fact that you believe they do demonstrates clearly that you are extremely unfamiliar with European news on the subject.

FEOS wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Well...how very centrist of you.
Where did I say I was centrist? I look at both sides and assess what I see based on the 20th century history of the region. The Israelis are to blame for the conflict, by the appalling way they acted in the 30-40 year build up to the first Arab-Israeli war. Since then, both sides have behaved very badly and there is little to distinguish between the two - which is why I look to the origins of the conflict when trying to determine who is more at fault.
Well at least you admit your bias. And you further admit that you side with the ME view. At least you're honest about it.
I don't side with the ME view. I have my own opinions which are quite different to the ME view, the European view and the US view. My views on this issue are consistent with my views on pretty much all conflicts. I don't side with the aggressor. Israel was the aggressor in this case and not only that, but the beginnings of their campaign were extremely slimy and insidious. If Israel were to take the moral high ground and actually take measures to sort this mess out, which so far they have failed to do, since they have no interest in giving things up for the Palestinian people who they have taken everything from (instead they continue to break international law and the UDHR on a daily basis, by preventing Palestinians access to Israel and by continuing to build illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza), then I would re-evaluate my assessment of them. Until they take some responsibility for the suffering their actions have caused, then my opinion of them will remain unchanged.
2008-08-16 03:06:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
Generally, I would condemn it. It depends on the situation. Is that the only way to take the guy out? Why is he hiding in a congested civilian area and not abiding by GC rules to remain separate from the civilian population? Are the civilians actively abetting his actions? If so, they are no longer non-combatants under international law.
Its completely unrealistic to expect a militia which has grown out of a situation like Palestine to behave in that way.

What do you suppose would have happened if the French, Dutch or Polish resistance had all marched into a field and put up a tent with 'Resistance Here' painted on the roof?

If you were shot down in enemy territory would you march down the middle of the road in full uniform shouting 'American Here!' towards the nearest military target you could take on or would you ditch your uniform and hide out as best you could?

Do you and your family currently live in a military base or are you 'hiding' amongst civilians?
Is your family helping you, eg by washing your clothes and cooking your food? Oops they're combatants now.

If Hamas and Hezbollah did what you're asking they would be wiped out in a minute, as they don't have the advantage of a standing army, navy and airforce, 200 nuclear weapons behind them or U$100bn in military freebies they don't have the luxury of fighting evenly and according to conventions they haven't signed.
Despite this they are doing about as well as your precious IDF in terms of collateral damage.

Since the Israelis violated multiple statutes, like the Geneva Convention, invading Palestine and attacking the civilian population in the first place I'd say they are not in a position to gripe.

As it was the Israelis who brought terrorism to the ME they can STFU.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-16 06:37:23)

Fuck Israel
2008-08-16 06:58:25
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

As it was the Israelis who brought terrorism to the ME they can STFU.
lol

also neither the French, Dutch or Polish resistance groups intentionally targeted civilians when engaging the Germans, unlike Hamas
2008-08-16 09:34:22
PureFodder
Member
+225|6705

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bullshit. If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians". There is no statute of limitation on murder OR terrorism. The fact that some douchebag happened to be watching cartoons and not planting a bomb when he got killed does not make an iota of difference as to whether he is a combatant or not.
Proove that all of the people that were assassinated by Israel were guilty and have engaged in military or terrorist action.
Prove that they haven't. You can't, just as I can't prove otherwise. And that's because neither of us was involved in any of those cases to be able to speak authoritatively about any of them.

And you've completely missed the point I was making. You are applying a temporal limit to whether one is a combatant where there is none. It is a limit of individual action and participation, not time.
Would you aprove of the US introducing a policy where an unknown group of people could get together, declare someone to have comitted a crime, assassinate them and never have to show any evidence of them ever having done anything wrong? Basically execute people without bother with that whole courts, justice and innocent until proven guilty thing. That's what's going on in Israel.

Again, you are jumping straight to the point where the person is a criminal without going through the bother of proving that they are.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

There's a significant difference between a terrorist and a suspected terrorist that legally must be assumed to be a civillian. It's called a trial.
No...it's called the actions of that individual.
What actions? The actions that the person did, or the actions that Isreal claims he did. There is no way for anyone to verify if any of the crimes aleged were ever actually comitted as no evidence has ever been presented.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Generally, I would condemn it. It depends on the situation. Is that the only way to take the guy out? Why is he hiding in a congested civilian area and not abiding by GC rules to remain separate from the civilian population? Are the civilians actively abetting his actions? If so, they are no longer non-combatants under international law.
Dropping a one ton bomb on a civillian area is never the only way to get someone, especially when you have absolute military contol of the region and can arrest people at will.
So Israel has "absolute military control" of Gaza? So I guess Israeli police can just walk in, unarmed, and arrest whomever they need to without any risk to their lives from Hamas? Wow. I guess we have all been misinformed. You should really let other people know that stuff and share your sources.
Did the thousands of Palestinians arrsted each year give themselves up or did Israeli forces arrest them? Again all human rights groups come to the same conclusions that Israel can arrest people at will and even, like in the example I gave, fails to arrest people that even the most incompetent police force couldn't fail to capture. The vast piles of evidence accumilated by these groups makes this point.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

There is zero evidence for any of these assassinated people ever having a fair trial. The evidence agaisnt these people has NEVER been made public according to all newspapers and Israeli and international human rights groups. They have NEVER had a chance to defend themselves in court. You have no proof that there ever has been a trial. Nobody has any proof. Based on innocent until proven guilty, all of the assassinated people must therefore be considered not guilty until Israel shows the evidence and a court can rule on the case. As that's NEVER happened, all of them must be assumed to be not guilty until they have their day in court. Once Israel prooves that they are terrorists then we can talk.
So are we talking about Israeli military strikes against Gaza or are we talking about Mossad assassinations? Just trying to keep track here.
Palestinians killed in Palestine in targeted assassination while presenting no threat to anyone.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

On another point, using your argument (If they engaged in military (or terrorist) action against Israel, they are not "innocent civilians".) as pretty well the entire adult male population of Israel is technically in the military and has at some point served, they mix in with the civillian populace, making all attacks against the Israeli civillian populace justified as they will kill soldiers who are not currently engaged in the conflict but have done in the past who are hiding amongst the civillian populace. According to your argument that is.
Nice effort at twisting words when you damn good and well what the meaning and context was. The Israelis you mention are not CURRENTLY soldiers. The Palestinians you refer to were CURRENTLY involved in the Hamas militia. If Hamas wants to send assassination squads against SPECIFIC former Israeli soldiers for actions those SPECIFIC individuals took when they were serving, then your argument would hold. As they do not do that, but rather target RANDOM Israeli civilians, whom Hamas has no idea whether or not they served in ANY capacity, your argument does not hold.

But decent try.
But you said there was no time limit involved therefore anyone that has served, by your argument, is still a target. So if Hamas announce the name of an Israeli, accuse him/her of a crime then fire at them then any innocent Israelis killed would be Israels fault? Purely based on your arguments. Again, you accuse these people of being in Hamas without proof. They are accused of being in Hamas, nobody has proved in a court of law that they are before they are killed.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Israel should try to prevent the attacks in measured response to the damage they are inflicting and with the upmost efforst to avoid innocent casualties. The rocket attacks kill a couple of innocent people a year. The efforts to stop the rocket attacks kill scores of innocents a year. That's disproportionate. It's similar to why we don't give grenades to cops. Clearly they'd be better at tackling bad guys, but the harm they inflict to innocents would be too severe to justify the actions. As I've said before, the utter military dominance of Israel gives them plenty of options besided bombings that could reduce the numbers of casualties. Israel chooses bombing which they know full well will kill innocent civillians.
So again...Israeli police can just waltz in to Gaza and arrest whomever they need to? Of course they can't. That leaves other, less desirable options. The number of civilian deaths is due strictly to Hamas' violation of the GC by incorporating their militant infrastructure with civilian infrastructure. If the militant infrastructure weren't there, the civilian infrastructure (and therefore innocent civilians) wouldn't be at risk. Hamas knows this full well and makes the most of it...in violation of the GC.

But I only hear you complaining about Israeli violations. Very centrist and objective, I must say.
According to the foremost investigations and reports coming out of Israel and Palestine Isreal can simply waltz into Palestine and arrest people, they do it every day. Again, do you believe that in the case of a kidnapping the police should just kill everyone, civillians and kidnappers?

How is "We rightly condem them for doing it anyway" not me condeming them? Very observant of you.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So you accept the position that neither side cares much about civillian deaths and retract your statement that Israel does everything it can to prevent civillian casualties?
And just how would you reach that ridiculous conclusion based on what I said? Both sides care about civilian deaths: the IDF cares about limiting them as much as they can, while Hamas cares about inflicting them as much as they can.

PureFodder wrote:

TI take it you therefore accept that Isreal unnessesarily uses force against Palestinians then as you aren't refuting the claims.
Just what have we been doing here? Are you paying attention?
Yes, I made a bunch of points, you failed to respond in any meaningful way to them (ie. the amazing ability of Israeli forces to never open fire on violent Israeli protests while repeated opening fire on non-violent Palestinian protests) Therefore I assumed you accept that these points made by human rights groups are correct and your statement is wrong. Can you explain the radical difference in actions against Palestinian and Israeli protests?

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

"the many cases in which the Israeli military abducted wanted Palestinians...shows that the Israeli military is able, when it so decides, to capture wanted persons. Therfore the assassinating them is clearly not the only possible act available" - PCATI and LAW, assassination policy, p.73
"Under the Israeli Penal Code the assassination of wanted Palestinians by the state is a "premeditated act of murder," while under international law in constitutes a war crime." - Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah p 137
Again...are we talking about Mossad assassinations or IDF strikes? You keep mixing the two topics.
Have I ever mentioned Mossad? I'm talking about the assassination of Palestinians in Palestine carried out by the state of Israel.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

No. You seem not to know about the whole innocent until proven guilty part of international law. Israel does not consider them combatants, and therefore they are civillians and must recieve a trial. As you refuse to actually comment or refute what I said, I'll assume that you can't. I've read reports from people who have actually lived there, read scholarly articles based on the primary evidence, human rights reports and ICJ findings. I'm basing my arguments on them, you seem to be basing you arguments on nothing other than the broad assumption that Israel is innocent and Palestinians are guilty and you can execute people without trial.
And it appears you have your head up that high horse's ass.

Israel absolutely does consider the Hamas militants to be combatants. You don't hold trials to determine which enemy position to take down. At least not in the real world.

Believe it or not, I've read many of the same things, as well as other publications that have performed objective analyses of IDF operations in both Gaza and S. Lebanon. They analyzed targeting methodologies, weapon choices (to include fuse settings), target ID criteria, and a host of other technical data. So yeah...just "broad assumptions".

Make sure you don't drown the next time it rains, with your nose up in the air like that.
You are refuting the combined findings of large numbers of highly respected Human rights groups and other Israeli and Palestinian groups. That makes you the arrogant one.

If Israel categorises Hamas members as combatants, why don't they get prisoner of war status?
Try reading Amnesty Internationals report of the Israeli invasion of Lebannon. Dropping hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions on populated areas dosn't do everything possible to limit civillian casualties, not does attacking civillian convoys. If you'd read the reports you wouldn't be saying these things as they are flatly refuted. Weapon choices and target critaria is exactly what they are being accused of doing wrong.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

   1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
   2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
          * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
          * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
          * that of carrying arms openly;
          * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
   4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

According to the geneva convention, they aren't combatants. You can't (rightfully) complain that they don't have a recognizable uniform, aren't openly carrying arms and fail to conduct their operations in any way in accordance with the laws and customs of war and also claim that they are combatants.
What are you talking about POW status for? We're talking about whether someone is considered a combatant or not. Not even sure why you care about POW status, since according to you, there aren't any Palestinians in Israeli prisons, anyway.

BTW: Item #2 describes the Hamas militia members...and it also defines them as a combatant under Art III of the GC. However, the last sub-bullet of item #2 and the last phrase of #4 also shows that Hamas behaves unlawfully. That would be against international law...you know that thing that apparently only Israel does?
But how did all those Palestinians get into prison if Israel is helpless to capture wanted Palestinians? I guess you think they lock themselves up?

If item 2 describes a milita as someone with a fixed symbol, carrying arms and conducting operations in accordance to the laws and customs of war, how is someone at home watching cartoons, unarmed, not wearing a uniform, posing no threat to anyone clearly a military target? The only way they could be considered a combatant is if you have evidence against them of prior action, and as they are not posing a threat to anyone they should either be arrested and tried or at the very least tried in abstentia with a full defence presented. If you have evidence that they are criminals, take it to court and prove it, if not, they must be considered innocent as they don't currently fit the description of a combatant. If they are currently comitting an act that endangers people then they are a target, if they may (OR MAY NOT) have comitted a criminal act in the past then a trial is in order.
2008-08-16 15:19:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reporting facts is completely different than reporting an event and then speculating/spinning its cause or reporting without the entire context. Human rights groups do that all the time, so long as it supports their agenda. If they couldn't find human rights abuses to report, they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?
You're nuts.
no u

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes. But it's understandable that you wouldn't get it. You have no background in martial studies nor do you bother to compare to other friendly-fire incidents, as that wouldn't support your claim.
I see.
In summary:
The Israelis bombed a well known UN outpost
- Over a period of six hours
- Despite six specific warnings they were bombing a UN outpost and which they acknowledge they received.
Culminating in a direct hit from a precision guided weapon.
They then agreed to let UN vehicles in, but fired on them too.
They then fired on the UN personnel trying to retrieve the bodies.

What is it I'm supposed to get exactly?
1. Where did you get the other details? Those weren't in any of the links provided.
2. Compare this singular event to the multiple instances, in multiple conflicts, involving multiple countries, of friendly fire incidents. You'll see the same pattern.

That's what you're supposed to get, but never will.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the Israelis didn't give a flying fuck about civilians, they would carpet bomb the ever loving shit out of Gaza.
They would if they could, but the international community, even the Americans, wouldn't let them get away with it.
Much easier to pick the Palestinians off here and there, when they respond shout 'Terrorist!' and pick off a few more.
Whatever makes your conspiracy theories most convenient, I guess.

The fact that you claim to know the minds of the Israeli leadership ("they would if they could...") removes any credibility you might have had on that claim. Pretty sure you're not 1) Israeli leadership or 2) privy to their strategy meetings.

They CAN (they have the capability). They DON'T. You think it's because they'd be worried about getting in trouble. I think it's because they aren't the base animals you seem to think they are. Just as I don't think the average Palestinian is some kind of animal. Their leadership, on the other hand...

Dilbert_X wrote:

How can you back up your claim about mil/civ kill ratios when neither Hamas nor Hezbollah wear anything identifying them as belonging to those groups?
Well I'm fairly sure women and children don't fit that category.
Because neither of those groups uses women or children for militant duties? What planet do you live on?

BTW, under international law, anyone who actively helps a combatant is no longer a protected person. How you like them apples? Oh wait...you're a self-proclaimed expert on the GC, so I'm sure you already knew that. My bad.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There is no statute of limitation on murder OR terrorism.
There are pesky things which say it has to be proven before a court of law, trials need to be fair, summary executions aren't permitted etc.
Again, what planet do you live on? Since when do armies hold trials to determine what their next target is?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Get off you high horse. You know no more about the situation than anyone else who doesn't live there. You certainly know fuckall about international law with regard to military targeting and the determination of combatant status--you proved that in your post.
You seem stressed, why don't you put your training bra on and go for a jog?
1. Wasn't talking to you.
2. Can't believe it took you this long to bring out the insults. You've shown rare restraint...it looks like the little boy is starting to grow up.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You seem to know bugger all about the Geneva Convention, ICHR etc considering you claim to work at the Pentagon.

Considering your totally biased and one sided world view you would be unable to apply it objectively even if you did have detailed knowledge.
And you seem to be unable to read. I'm willing to bet I know a damn sight more about the GC and its practical application than you do. As do most, if not all, the military (present or former) members on this forum. It's just inconvenient for your arguments that I do. Too bad.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-16 15:28:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

Not at all. That wouldn't be like for like now would it?

The Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptians haven't deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians, so there would be no case for it whatsoever. Think about it before making these rash statements. The Israelis have targeted Palestinian civilians from very early on. They started the terrorism, groups like the Irgun were just that, dedicated terrorist groups that were there to kill civilians with quite similar methods to the ones the Palestinians employ today. Bombs strapped to donkeys in busy Arab market places, how is that different to suicide bombers on buses and the like?

The Palestinians are simply using the same tactics that they have seen the Israelis use so successfully to gain control of their country, throw them out of it and then block all their legal rights to return there, forcing them to live in refugee camps.
So the Pals in Lebanon could leave the refugee camps and integrate into Lebanese society?

So the Pals in Gaza could easily leave and emigrate to Egypt in order to live a better life for their children?

Jordan didn't prevent the Pals from emigrating there when they initially left the West Bank area?

Sounds like they were getting actively screwed over, and that appears to be the sole criteria for you. So the Pals should be attacking those three countries, as well. They are screwing over the Pals.

Bertster7 wrote:

Dictionary definitions are what words mean. If you want to make up your own meanings that no one else understands because they are not standardised, then that's just silly. I can understand you getting it wrong, that's perfectly normal. But to get it wrong and then persist in saying your interpretation of it is correct, shows a counter-productive level of wilful ignorance - it only takes a few seconds to check a definition.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other. That's what the US does. The fact that you believe they do demonstrates clearly that you are extremely unfamiliar with European news on the subject.
I suppose you've never heard of colloquialisms? Perhaps you should look it up.

You knew exactly what I meant. I was using a relational definition as opposed to the textbook definition. That's actually perfectly acceptable...except, it appears, when it counters your argument.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other? Really? Then what's with the Euro = Pal/Hamas supporter to the exclusion of all others paradigm on this forum? It certainly appears that you, as a Euro (and others, as Euros) are doing the exact thing you claim the US does.

I'm not at all unfamiliar with European news on the subject...how the hell do you think I came to the position that Euros have taken a side?

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well at least you admit your bias. And you further admit that you side with the ME view. At least you're honest about it.
I don't side with the ME view. I have my own opinions which are quite different to the ME view, the European view and the US view. My views on this issue are consistent with my views on pretty much all conflicts. I don't side with the aggressor. Israel was the aggressor in this case and not only that, but the beginnings of their campaign were extremely slimy and insidious. If Israel were to take the moral high ground and actually take measures to sort this mess out, which so far they have failed to do, since they have no interest in giving things up for the Palestinian people who they have taken everything from (instead they continue to break international law and the UDHR on a daily basis, by preventing Palestinians access to Israel and by continuing to build illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza), then I would re-evaluate my assessment of them. Until they take some responsibility for the suffering their actions have caused, then my opinion of them will remain unchanged.
You side with Hamas and Hezbollah. The ME sides with Hamas and Hezbollah. Put whatever lipstick you want on that pig...it's still the same pig.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-16 15:46:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Generally, I would condemn it. It depends on the situation. Is that the only way to take the guy out? Why is he hiding in a congested civilian area and not abiding by GC rules to remain separate from the civilian population? Are the civilians actively abetting his actions? If so, they are no longer non-combatants under international law.
Its completely unrealistic to expect a militia which has grown out of a situation like Palestine to behave in that way.
No, it's not. It's completely unrealistic to expect your double-standard to stand up to scrutiny. You can't have one set of rules for one group and a different set for another. You complain about Israel not following the GC and other international guidelines, but you fully support Hamas violating them time and again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What do you suppose would have happened if the French, Dutch or Polish resistance had all marched into a field and put up a tent with 'Resistance Here' painted on the roof?
That's not what I said Hamas should do, and that level of ridiculousness (which, as a GC and international law expert you should realize) is not required. Only a separation from civilian infrastructure...in order to prevent lawful attacks from your adversary from killing large numbers of civilians.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you were shot down in enemy territory would you march down the middle of the road in full uniform shouting 'American Here!' towards the nearest military target you could take on or would you ditch your uniform and hide out as best you could?
If you ditch your uniform, you give up many of your rights under the GC (which, again, since you're an expert, you should know). See above. Jumping to hyperbole doesn't help your counter one bit.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you and your family currently live in a military base or are you 'hiding' amongst civilians?
Is your family helping you, eg by washing your clothes and cooking your food? Oops they're combatants now.
Helping an individual is different than helping an organization. It would be different if they were maintaining my weapon, building bombs for me to plant, etc.

I think you're being intentionally ignorant here. If the infrastructure of the base were interspersed among the general population, your argument would make sense. But it isn't, so it doesn't. Your refusal to open your mind to reality simply because it's uncomfortable doesn't make it any less real.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If Hamas and Hezbollah did what you're asking they would be wiped out in a minute, as they don't have the advantage of a standing army, navy and airforce, 200 nuclear weapons behind them or U$100bn in military freebies they don't have the luxury of fighting evenly and according to conventions they haven't signed.
So because Hamas and Hezbollah haven't signed the GC, they shouldn't abide by it? Is that really what you want to say here?

So, according to your "logic" (to use the term quite loosely), if a belligerent will lose in their cause by complying with international standards of behavior, then they should just ignore those international standards? I'm willing to bet next month's pay check that if you didn't agree with that group's cause, you wouldn't be making that argument.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Despite this they are doing about as well as your precious IDF in terms of collateral damage.
I never called the IDF "precious". They could probably take additional measures to limit collateral damage. Notice I said "additional". That means I KNOW they are currently applying measures to limit collateral damage--the exact opposite of what you have been saying.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Since the Israelis violated multiple statutes, like the Geneva Convention, invading Palestine and attacking the civilian population in the first place I'd say they are not in a position to gripe.
One side's violations do not justify the other side's violations. "They did it first" is not an adequate argument in these types of situations.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-16 17:40:26
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

Would you aprove of the US introducing a policy where an unknown group of people could get together, declare someone to have comitted a crime, assassinate them and never have to show any evidence of them ever having done anything wrong? Basically execute people without bother with that whole courts, justice and innocent until proven guilty thing. That's what's going on in Israel.

Again, you are jumping straight to the point where the person is a criminal without going through the bother of proving that they are.
Again, you are talking about assassinations. I was talking about military operations. They are distinctly different and operate under different rules.

PureFodder wrote:

What actions? The actions that the person did, or the actions that Isreal claims he did. There is no way for anyone to verify if any of the crimes aleged were ever actually comitted as no evidence has ever been presented.
What does it matter if YOU know what the person did or didn't do? Public trials are not a requirement in all countries. It is the height of arrogance for you to claim an action is illegitimate just because YOU don't have personal knowledge of the legal decision and/or the process by which that decision was arrived.

PureFodder wrote:

Did the thousands of Palestinians arrsted each year give themselves up or did Israeli forces arrest them? Again all human rights groups come to the same conclusions that Israel can arrest people at will and even, like in the example I gave, fails to arrest people that even the most incompetent police force couldn't fail to capture. The vast piles of evidence accumilated by these groups makes this point.
You still haven't addressed the ridiculous nature of your claim. You claim that Israel can arrest who they want, where they want. The Israeli police are not operating freely in Gaza...even you can't legitimately claim that. The arrests occur at checkpoints or inside Israeli-controlled territory...which Gaza most definitely is not.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So are we talking about Israeli military strikes against Gaza or are we talking about Mossad assassinations? Just trying to keep track here.
Palestinians killed in Palestine in targeted assassination while presenting no threat to anyone.
So because they aren't posing a threat to anyone at the time they are struck, they aren't a legitimate target? What color is the sky on your world?

PureFodder wrote:

But you said there was no time limit involved therefore anyone that has served, by your argument, is still a target. So if Hamas announce the name of an Israeli, accuse him/her of a crime then fire at them then any innocent Israelis killed would be Israels fault? Purely based on your arguments. Again, you accuse these people of being in Hamas without proof. They are accused of being in Hamas, nobody has proved in a court of law that they are before they are killed.
If they have a process--even if it is a closed process--that presents evidence and determines that the person targeted is a legitimate target (ie, they have committed some capital crime or are a legal military target), then I have no problem with it. Your problem is that you assume, simply because the Israelis don't share their evidence with you, that no evidence and no process exists.

And my argument, which I expanded upon later yet you chose to ignore, was that a person currently involved in supporting the opposition, regardless of what they are doing at that exact moment is still a legitimate target. But I am also talking about military targeting. You keep mixing military targeting and political assassinations. They are separate and distinct. Your confusion of the issue is preventing you from understanding the point I was making vis a vis military targeting.

PureFodder wrote:

According to the foremost investigations and reports coming out of Israel and Palestine Isreal can simply waltz into Palestine and arrest people, they do it every day. Again, do you believe that in the case of a kidnapping the police should just kill everyone, civillians and kidnappers?
What are these "foremost investigations and reports coming out of Israel and Palestine Isreal (sic)" that you mention, yet fail to source?

PureFodder wrote:

How is "We rightly condem them for doing it anyway" not me condeming them? Very observant of you.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.

PureFodder wrote:

Yes, I made a bunch of points, you failed to respond in any meaningful way to them (ie. the amazing ability of Israeli forces to never open fire on violent Israeli protests while repeated opening fire on non-violent Palestinian protests) Therefore I assumed you accept that these points made by human rights groups are correct and your statement is wrong. Can you explain the radical difference in actions against Palestinian and Israeli protests?
You not liking my responses does not equate to me "failing to respond in any meaningful way to them". I'm guessing that the only "meaningful" way I could possibly respond (according to you, at least) would be for me to say that you're 100% right, the Israelis only target civilians, and Israel should cease to exist. That ain't gonna happen.

Those weren't claims by human rights organizations. They were claims you said human rights organizations made. Provide the sources before you start throwing around arrogant claims about what I do or do not think or agree with.

PureFodder wrote:

Have I ever mentioned Mossad? I'm talking about the assassination of Palestinians in Palestine carried out by the state of Israel.
Unless they involve IDF operations, they aren't part of what I'm talking about and debating in this thread. If you want to talk about Israeli government non-military operations such as assassinations, then fine. Start another thread.

PureFodder wrote:

You are refuting the combined findings of large numbers of highly respected Human rights groups and other Israeli and Palestinian groups. That makes you the arrogant one.
So refuting others' findings makes one arrogant? I'd say blindly accepting things simply because you like what they say is worse.

PureFodder wrote:

If Israel categorises Hamas members as combatants, why don't they get prisoner of war status?
Because they are (or were) also Israeli citizens, so they fall under Israeli domestic law. Therefore, they can't be treated as POWs. Additionally, since they do not follow the GC, they can still be considered combatants but Israel does not necessarily have to provide them the same treatment as they must provide combatants who follow the guidelines of the GC.

PureFodder wrote:

Try reading Amnesty Internationals report of the Israeli invasion of Lebannon. Dropping hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions on populated areas dosn't do everything possible to limit civillian casualties, not does attacking civillian convoys. If you'd read the reports you wouldn't be saying these things as they are flatly refuted. Weapon choices and target critaria is exactly what they are being accused of doing wrong.
I have read AI's report. AI is biased in the extreme and finds human rights abuses often where there are none. That is not to say that there weren't factually accurate findings in the report, however. It's just saying that not everything AI reported was chapter and verse from the gospel.

The CBUs were a small fraction of the overall weapon usage, and their use was rightly decried...even by the US.

PureFodder wrote:

But how did all those Palestinians get into prison if Israel is helpless to capture wanted Palestinians? I guess you think they lock themselves up?
Oh, I don't know...checkpoints, capture during IDF incursions into Gaza, capture outside of Gaza, capture by Mossad inside Gaza? Don't forget that many of those were arrested while Israel still occupied Gaza...a completely different situation than is faced today.

PureFodder wrote:

If item 2 describes a milita as someone with a fixed symbol, carrying arms and conducting operations in accordance to the laws and customs of war, how is someone at home watching cartoons, unarmed, not wearing a uniform, posing no threat to anyone clearly a military target? The only way they could be considered a combatant is if you have evidence against them of prior action, and as they are not posing a threat to anyone they should either be arrested and tried or at the very least tried in abstentia with a full defence presented. If you have evidence that they are criminals, take it to court and prove it, if not, they must be considered innocent as they don't currently fit the description of a combatant. If they are currently comitting an act that endangers people then they are a target, if they may (OR MAY NOT) have comitted a criminal act in the past then a trial is in order.
I carry a US Armed Forces ID card at all times. Even when not in uniform. I am subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, Geneva Convention, and various other laws and agreements at all times...even when I am not in uniform. Why is that? Because I am an active member of the US military. As such, I am a legitimate target under international laws--even when I am sitting at home watching cartoons.

It's not a matter of guilt or innocence of a specific action. It's a matter of being a member of a military organization. You are confusing criminal activity with military activity. Their refusal to follow the GC guidelines and clearly identify themselves as militia members does not remove their combatant status...only their status as a legal combatant, with the benefits that accompany that designation.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-16 17:46:54
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7093|Colorado
The Palestinians have no property rights, ship off vagrant. I have no sympathy for them.
2008-08-16 23:39:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
1. Where did you get the other details? Those weren't in any of the links provided.
Duh, they were in the passage already quoted previously.
Here it is again.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … observers/
'Jane Lute, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, told the Security Council that the post, which is three miles (5km) from an Israeli artillery position, came under close fire 21 times on Tuesday, suffering 12 hits within 100 metres and four direct hits. Contact was lost with the four peacekeepers inside at 7.17pm Ms Lute said that she and Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General, called Israel’s mission to the UN in New York “reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling”.

She said that Unifil secured safe passage for two armoured personnel carriers, which arrived at 9.30pm and found the shelter collapsed and severe damage to the rest of the position. Despite the agreement, she said, Israel attacked the carriers.

Dermot Ahern, the Irish Foreign Minister, said that Israeli troops fired on the Egyptian UN soldiers sent to dig out the bodies. “(It) raises questions about whether this was an accident,” he said. '
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 693450.ece
From the notoriously anti-semitic Time Newspaper
So refuting others' findings makes one arrogant? I'd say blindly accepting things simply because you like what they say is worse.
Saying all human rights groups are biased is pretty incredible.
All members of the US military are biased, if they didn't exaggerate foreign aggression they'd all be out of a job - now we're even.

I'm not at all unfamiliar with European news on the subject...how the hell do you think I came to the position that Euros have taken a side?
We haven't particularly taken a side, we think both sides are involved in terrorism, they are fighting equally dirty. The Israelis are the aggressors in the situation and steps need to be taken for the situation to be resolved. With the US backing Israel without question its impossible to make progress.
Just as I don't think the average Palestinian is some kind of animal. Their leadership, on the other hand...
I do think the Israeli leadership are animals, multiple politicians, PMs etc former terrorists, and we can discuss Sharon if you like.
Again, what planet do you live on? Since when do armies hold trials to determine what their next target is?
Murder and terrorism are criminal matters, or they should be brought before tribunals, even the US has figured this out - although Gitmo is clearly a farce.
One side's violations do not justify the other side's violations. "They did it first" is not an adequate argument in these types of situations.
Not really, but thats the situation. Its not reasonable for one side to wage a war of aggression through illegal means and then say, 'we won, now you guys have to abide by conventions which we never did and don't plan to in the future.'
Might as well punch someone in the face and say - you can't punch me, assault is illegal!
As such, I am a legitimate target under international laws--even when I am sitting at home watching cartoons.
I see, so you'd have no issue with having a 1,000kg bomb dropped on you, your family, your neighbours and any passersby in the street because some guy 5,000km away has determined, in secret, using evidence you're not privy to, according to the laws and standards of his country - not yours, that you were involved in planning an operation which lead to the deaths of some civilians in his country?

Can't believe it took you this long to bring out the insults. You've shown rare restraint...it looks like the little boy is starting to grow up.
You're clearly forgetting the 'nitwit' thing.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-16 23:43:08)

Fuck Israel
2008-08-17 02:25:40
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Not at all. That wouldn't be like for like now would it?

The Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptians haven't deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians, so there would be no case for it whatsoever. Think about it before making these rash statements. The Israelis have targeted Palestinian civilians from very early on. They started the terrorism, groups like the Irgun were just that, dedicated terrorist groups that were there to kill civilians with quite similar methods to the ones the Palestinians employ today. Bombs strapped to donkeys in busy Arab market places, how is that different to suicide bombers on buses and the like?

The Palestinians are simply using the same tactics that they have seen the Israelis use so successfully to gain control of their country, throw them out of it and then block all their legal rights to return there, forcing them to live in refugee camps.
So the Pals in Lebanon could leave the refugee camps and integrate into Lebanese society?

So the Pals in Gaza could easily leave and emigrate to Egypt in order to live a better life for their children?

Jordan didn't prevent the Pals from emigrating there when they initially left the West Bank area?

Sounds like they were getting actively screwed over, and that appears to be the sole criteria for you. So the Pals should be attacking those three countries, as well. They are screwing over the Pals.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The Israelis persecuted the Palestinians, the Palestinians are doing the exact same thing back to them in the same way, though less successfully. Their Arab neighbours have often been less than helpful to the Palestinians, which should warrant the Palestinians being less than helpful to them. Like for like.

You really seem to have trouble grasping the fact that any of the terror attacks you condemn so swiftly from the Palestinians are exactly the same thing the Israelis did when they reached Palestine, many of them as illegal immigrants.

How would you feel if one massive group of immigrants, lets say the Chinese, since there are loads of them, illegally immigrated to the US (I know the analogy is flawed since the chances of this happening there in the foreseeable future are next to non-existent, due to the economic and military strength of the US - but lets pretend for a moment your own country is not in such a stable state) and then, through a sustained campaign of terror (bombings, murders, kidnappings) they drove most Americans from their homes, targeted UN peacekeeping troops there deliberately and took 80% of the country for themselves and continued to gradually expand the area they had taken.

This is what happened to the Palestinians. That is absolute fact. I can prove all of that absolutely with no difficulty. If you'd be happy to just sit back and take it, rather trying to reclaim your country, then fair enough - but if you would feel justified in trying to reclaim your country through violence and terror, just as it was taken from you - then you should think again about what the situation actually is in Palestine.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Dictionary definitions are what words mean. If you want to make up your own meanings that no one else understands because they are not standardised, then that's just silly. I can understand you getting it wrong, that's perfectly normal. But to get it wrong and then persist in saying your interpretation of it is correct, shows a counter-productive level of wilful ignorance - it only takes a few seconds to check a definition.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other. That's what the US does. The fact that you believe they do demonstrates clearly that you are extremely unfamiliar with European news on the subject.
I suppose you've never heard of colloquialisms? Perhaps you should look it up.

You knew exactly what I meant. I was using a relational definition as opposed to the textbook definition. That's actually perfectly acceptable...except, it appears, when it counters your argument.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other? Really? Then what's with the Euro = Pal/Hamas supporter to the exclusion of all others paradigm on this forum? It certainly appears that you, as a Euro (and others, as Euros) are doing the exact thing you claim the US does.

I'm not at all unfamiliar with European news on the subject...how the hell do you think I came to the position that Euros have taken a side?
Acceptable to whom? By the way, you're not using the word colloquialism properly either, that's not what it means (for a start colloquial is a word applied purely to speech, we are writing here, in case you hadn't noticed - as for relational definitions, I've certainly never heard of them being used linguistically, just in databases - I put it to you that there is no such thing, and even if there were it would most certainly not be applicable in this case).

If you really do think that, after seeing European news on the subject, Europe takes the side of the Palestinians and Hamas, then you are a fool. No two ways about it. You have clearly been so heavily influenced by the prevailing cultural bias in your society that you can't be expected to understand the situation in the slightest.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well at least you admit your bias. And you further admit that you side with the ME view. At least you're honest about it.
I don't side with the ME view. I have my own opinions which are quite different to the ME view, the European view and the US view. My views on this issue are consistent with my views on pretty much all conflicts. I don't side with the aggressor. Israel was the aggressor in this case and not only that, but the beginnings of their campaign were extremely slimy and insidious. If Israel were to take the moral high ground and actually take measures to sort this mess out, which so far they have failed to do, since they have no interest in giving things up for the Palestinian people who they have taken everything from (instead they continue to break international law and the UDHR on a daily basis, by preventing Palestinians access to Israel and by continuing to build illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza), then I would re-evaluate my assessment of them. Until they take some responsibility for the suffering their actions have caused, then my opinion of them will remain unchanged.
You side with Hamas and Hezbollah. The ME sides with Hamas and Hezbollah. Put whatever lipstick you want on that pig...it's still the same pig.
Wow. With that level of subtlety, I'm surprised you're not in politics.


You've written a lot of responses, but sadly none of them have had anything to say, certainly nothing of substance. You haven't presented any reasoning for any of your assertions and just claim things are so because you say so. Try actually presenting some sort of structured argument in one of your responses.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-08-17 03:27:11)

2008-08-17 02:44:44
PureFodder
Member
+225|6705

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Would you aprove of the US introducing a policy where an unknown group of people could get together, declare someone to have comitted a crime, assassinate them and never have to show any evidence of them ever having done anything wrong? Basically execute people without bother with that whole courts, justice and innocent until proven guilty thing. That's what's going on in Israel.

Again, you are jumping straight to the point where the person is a criminal without going through the bother of proving that they are.
Again, you are talking about assassinations. I was talking about military operations. They are distinctly different and operate under different rules.
The IDF carry out assassinations, if they want to blur the destinction that's not my fault.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

What actions? The actions that the person did, or the actions that Isreal claims he did. There is no way for anyone to verify if any of the crimes aleged were ever actually comitted as no evidence has ever been presented.
What does it matter if YOU know what the person did or didn't do? Public trials are not a requirement in all countries. It is the height of arrogance for you to claim an action is illegitimate just because YOU don't have personal knowledge of the legal decision and/or the process by which that decision was arrived.
There is no judicial oversight of the decision, even Isral don't claim that.
"It is a pre-planned mission, the goal of which is from the outset a human rights violation, and carrying it out is therefore a heinous crime both legally and ethically"
"Israel joins an infamous group of states that grossly violates basic moral and humane norms that the international community consider binding" - PCATI and LAW.
"There is no therefore no possibility of estimating how many of those assassinated were indeed involved in violent actions as the Israeli authorities claim and how many were assassinated as innocent victims of a draconian system that is more expected from a dark dictatorship than a democracy of the 21st century." - B'Tselem

Nice policies you choose to try to defend.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Did the thousands of Palestinians arrsted each year give themselves up or did Israeli forces arrest them? Again all human rights groups come to the same conclusions that Israel can arrest people at will and even, like in the example I gave, fails to arrest people that even the most incompetent police force couldn't fail to capture. The vast piles of evidence accumilated by these groups makes this point.
You still haven't addressed the ridiculous nature of your claim. You claim that Israel can arrest who they want, where they want. The Israeli police are not operating freely in Gaza...even you can't legitimately claim that. The arrests occur at checkpoints or inside Israeli-controlled territory...which Gaza most definitely is not.
"The Israeli army has proved that it can and does exercise full and effective control over the Occupied Territories, including the areas which fall under the Palestinian Authority jurisdiction.

In the past three and a half years the Israeli army and security services have arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians whom they accuse of having perpetrated, participated in or planned attacks against Israeli soldiers or civilians. Such arrests continue daily in towns, villages and refugee camps throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those arrested have been apprehended individually or in groups, in their homes or other private houses, in universities or student dormitories, at their work place or at checkpoints, when moving around openly or while in hiding. While the majority of the Palestinians arrested by the Israeli army have been subsequently released without charge or trial, thousands have been charged with criminal offences including committing, participating in or planning suicide bombings and other attacks against civilians or soldiers.

Extrajudicial executions of Palestinians by the Israeli army have been widely condemned by the international community, including by United Nations bodies and mechanisms. Most recently, on 17 April, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the assassination of Hamas leader Abdelaziz Rantissi, reiterating that "extrajudicial killings are violations of international law" and calling on the Israeli government "to immediately end this practice". " - Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset … 004en.html

Damn those crazy internationally respected human rights groups and nutters like the UN secretary-General.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So are we talking about Israeli military strikes against Gaza or are we talking about Mossad assassinations? Just trying to keep track here.
Palestinians killed in Palestine in targeted assassination while presenting no threat to anyone.
So because they aren't posing a threat to anyone at the time they are struck, they aren't a legitimate target? What color is the sky on your world?
The same colour as that above Amnesty International. I find them more credible than you and your complete lack of sources and evidence.

Part II coming later....

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard