|
On November 18 2012 21:16 silynxer wrote:
The armed opposition of Hamas in form of rockets does not really target anything because they lack the technology to target, I'm sure if Israel would provide them with better rockets Hamas would target more valid stuff as argued before (but would you really like"surgical" strikes from Hamas more than these unaimed attacks?)
I have not a single doubt in my mind that if Hamas acquires missiles that are actually capable of hitting anything at all we will see bloody war. There are so many hardliners in Israel that if missiles start falling with consistency on Tel Aviv, then they will defend in turn. I hope to God and whoever else who may care to look down that nobody is stupid or greedy enough to suplly Hamas with such tools.
|
On November 18 2012 21:26 silynxer wrote:
So you moved your position from "they probably didn't do this" to "it's ok because they were Hamas journalists"? Targeting journalists because they publish stuff that you see as propaganda is now alright?
There is a difference beetwen propaganda and disinformation. Suppose Israel broadcasts to the population of gaza to avoid X location and Hamas responds by saying everyone should come to X. If its a official branch of Hamas it is a legitimate target as its a propaganda tool and not a covered by journalistic protection (the same journalistic protection also dosnt apply to IDF spokesman).
On November 18 2012 21:25 Goozen wrote:
Show nested quote +
Read my edit
I did, and i will give you that. Al'Aqsa (or what it was called) may be not independent. Explain to me why Al'Quds was hit.
Edit: not to mention the fact that journalists are still journalists, even if they don't promote what you want them to do. Look at Fox and CNN, hardly unbiased as well.
I am not a member of the government or military command so i cant tell you exactly why Al'Quds was targeted, maybe there will be a statement later, maybe not. However the attacks very much focused on these 2 offices only and not the whole building or other media outlets in gaza so the whole "silence the media" argument is moot.
|
One sided is a bit different from rubbish and if their sources are bad it should be no problem to find wrong Aljazeera articles (I'm actually interested and I would change my opinion of Aljazeera if you could show me this).
I understand that Hamas targets civilian positions, the rockets are obviously a kind of terrorist action to instill fear. What I mean is Hamas would surely like to target leaders of Israel as surgical as Israel targets their leaders but they can't. Destroying military bases or even substantially damaging them is also off the table for them with what they got (while Israel can damage Hamas' military capabilities quite severely and does). From their perspective there is no reason to target military bases for that reason, because the terror component would be lost. Not to condone any of this.
Again would you really be more happy about aimed attacks from Hamas on your leaders or important infrastructure?
[EDIT]: Have you an example of this kind of disinformation? Because you still cannot target journalists on a whim and I disagree that civilians become valid targets by doing propaganda. Might as well target schools because of indoctrination.
You are right that this is was not a strike to blackout the media (yeah I implied that and that's my bad).
Well said m4inbrain.
|
On November 18 2012 21:35 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:26 silynxer wrote:
So you moved your position from "they probably didn't do this" to "it's ok because they were Hamas journalists"? Targeting journalists because they publish stuff that you see as propaganda is now alright? There is a difference beetwen propaganda and disinformation. Suppose Israel broadcasts to the population of gaza to avoid X location and Hamas responds by saying everyone should come to X. If its a official branch of Hamas it is a legitimate target as its a propaganda tool and not a covered by journalistic protection (the same journalistic protection also dosnt apply to IDF spokesman). Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:25 Goozen wrote:
Show nested quote +
Read my edit
I did, and i will give you that. Al'Aqsa (or what it was called) may be not independent. Explain to me why Al'Quds was hit.
Edit: not to mention the fact that journalists are still journalists, even if they don't promote what you want them to do. Look at Fox and CNN, hardly unbiased as well. I am not a member of the government of military command so i cant tell you exactly why Al'Quds was targeted, maybe there will be a statement later, maybe not. However the attacks very much focused on these 2 offices only and not the whole building or other media outlets in gaza so the whole "silence the media" argument is moot.
I never said that Israel is trying to silence media, stop mixing stuff up.
I asked if its justified that this building with international journalists was attacked. And it's still not, even if Israel thinks that Al'Aqsa is a branch of Hamas. The fact that you say "well i don't know why Israel targeted Al'Quds, but i'm sure it's fine because they surely had a reason" is btw the biggest problem in this thread (and may be in Israel as well). Begin questioning not just Hamas (which we all should), but start questioning IDF as well (which we all should as well, but some don't).
|
On November 18 2012 21:39 silynxer wrote:
Again would you really be more happy about aimed attacks from Hamas on your leaders or important infrastructure?
I wouldn't be happy but it wouldn't be a war crime. Targeting civilians with no strategic importance is defined as a war crime, while targeting strategic stuff is not (including infrastructure).
|
Israel2209 Posts
|
On November 18 2012 21:39 silynxer wrote:
One sided is a bit different from rubbish and if their sources are bad it should be no problem to find wrong Aljazeera articles (I'm actually interested and I would change my opinion of Aljazeera if you could show me this).
I understand that Hamas targets civilian positions, the rockets are obviously a kind of terrorist action to instill fear. What I mean is Hamas would surely like to target leaders of Israel as surgical as Israel targets their leaders but they can't. Destroying military bases or even substantially damaging them is also off the table for them with what they got (while Israel can damage Hamas' military capabilities quite severely and does). From their perspective there is no reason to target military bases for that reason, because the terror component would be lost. Not to condone any of this.
Again would you really be more happy about aimed attacks from Hamas on your leaders or important infrastructure?
Al Jazeera didnt do anything wrong, all they said was "sources claim X" and if it turns out wrong they take it down or keep it as "source X claimed that, there is nothing "wrong" in that its they do other then having a tendency to use sources that have been known in the past to be questionable.
As far as targeting leaders or military infrastructure, its a lot more legitimate and those are considered allowed targets in the state of war, so it would even increase their claims (that are rubbish) that they have issues with the Israeli government and army but not with the population.
|
Lol noam, i was just about to write the same thing. ty.
|
On November 18 2012 21:43 m4inbrain wrote:
I asked if its justified that this building with international journalists was attacked. And it's still not, even if Israel thinks that Al'Aqsa is a branch of Hamas. The fact that you say "well i don't know why Israel targeted Al'Quds, but i'm sure it's fine because they surely had a reason" is btw the biggest problem in this thread (and may be in Israel as well). Begin questioning not just Hamas (which we all should), but start questioning IDF as well (which we all should as well, but some don't).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters
In short, in the Kosovo War, Nato forces bombed, among others stuff, the Serbian Television, with lots of civilian causalities. In the legal review of the operation it says that "Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable".
It seems that in International Law it's ok to target the enemy communication network.
|
On November 18 2012 21:51 bonse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:43 m4inbrain wrote:
I asked if its justified that this building with international journalists was attacked. And it's still not, even if Israel thinks that Al'Aqsa is a branch of Hamas. The fact that you say "well i don't know why Israel targeted Al'Quds, but i'm sure it's fine because they surely had a reason" is btw the biggest problem in this thread (and may be in Israel as well). Begin questioning not just Hamas (which we all should), but start questioning IDF as well (which we all should as well, but some don't).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquartersIn short, in the Kosovo War, Nato forces bombed, among others stuff, the Serbian Television, with lots of civilian causalities. In the legal review of the operation it says that "Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable". It seems that in International Law it's ok to target the enemy communication network.
there's a diffrent law for Israel. There's not one major power on earth that would accept rocket firing at it. as much as i want to Israel that way, it's not a major power and therefor can't bomb the television/radio stations.
|
Then why not allow other Arab countries to provide them with high precision weapons and if they fuck up (i.e. target something invalid) don't let any further weapons through? I know why and you know why, because it would be worse for Israel by any measurable standard (like Israels attacks on Gaza are worse by any measurable standard, where measurable does not include the moral standard you prescribe). And also what DerNebel said.
Like I said Goozen, do you have an example of medical sources being wrong or even being usually wrong? Just saying this because you conflate news from Gaza with propaganda from Hamas doesn't make it true (and as you can see if I'm mistaken I admit it).
Uhm that NATO does horrible shit and calls it legal does not mean Israel may do horrible shit. Come on if we can't agree that targeting journalists is bad, I#m going to lose hope.
|
On November 18 2012 21:51 bonse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:43 m4inbrain wrote:
I asked if its justified that this building with international journalists was attacked. And it's still not, even if Israel thinks that Al'Aqsa is a branch of Hamas. The fact that you say "well i don't know why Israel targeted Al'Quds, but i'm sure it's fine because they surely had a reason" is btw the biggest problem in this thread (and may be in Israel as well). Begin questioning not just Hamas (which we all should), but start questioning IDF as well (which we all should as well, but some don't).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquartersIn short, in the Kosovo War, Nato forces bombed, among others stuff, the Serbian Television, with lots of civilian causalities. In the legal review of the operation it says that "Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable". It seems that in International Law it's ok to target the enemy communication network.
Yeah. You missed something there.
"NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milosević in power."
I'm sure you will tell me now that there is no difference, or point to another incident that fits a bit more to justifying this attack (because this quote failed miserably), but meh.
Might want to quote everything. But i am not surprised, seeing the lack of self-reflection and fingerpointing (especially done by you). I just give up, you are hopeless.
Just for the future, if someone actually tries to argue with you, stop fucking fingerpointing as if you are 10 years old, and start thinking about what people say.
|
On November 18 2012 21:39 silynxer wrote:
One sided is a bit different from rubbish and if their sources are bad it should be no problem to find wrong Aljazeera articles (I'm actually interested and I would change my opinion of Aljazeera if you could show me this).
I understand that Hamas targets civilian positions, the rockets are obviously a kind of terrorist action to instill fear. What I mean is Hamas would surely like to target leaders of Israel as surgical as Israel targets their leaders but they can't. Destroying military bases or even substantially damaging them is also off the table for them with what they got (while Israel can damage Hamas' military capabilities quite severely and does). From their perspective there is no reason to target military bases for that reason, because the terror component would be lost. Not to condone any of this.
Again would you really be more happy about aimed attacks from Hamas on your leaders or important infrastructure?
[EDIT]: Have you an example of this kind of disinformation? Because you still cannot target journalists on a whim and I disagree that civilians become valid targets by doing propaganda. Might as well target schools because of indoctrination.
You are right that this is was not a strike to blackout the media (yeah I implied that and that's my bad).
Well said m4inbrain.
The reason i trust my government is that so far they have acted willing to defend me. So far in this thread videos have been linked with the disinformation including rockets injuring and killing people in tel-aviv, hitting the Israeli Parliament, downing a Israeli plane and more. I dont have a link to them actually putting peoples lives at risks but when they are giving their population the sense they are winning they are less likely to loose public support and not mind being used as shields (i linked a while back a Reuters tweet about them firing rockets from downtown gaza wile people were cheering them on).
|
On November 18 2012 21:55 silynxer wrote:
Then why not allow other Arab countries to provide them with high precision weapons and if they fuck up (i.e. target something invalid) don't let any further weapons through? I know why and you know why, because it would be worse for Israel by any measurable standard (like Israels attacks on Gaza are worse by any measurable standard, where measurable does not include the moral standard you prescribe). And also what DerNebel said.
Like I said Goozen, do you have an example of medical sources being wrong or even being usually wrong? Just saying this because you conflate news from Gaza with propaganda from Hamas doesn't make it true (and as you can see if I'm mistaken I admit it).
Uhm that NATO does horrible shit and calls it legal does not mean Israel may do horrible shit. Come on if we can't agree that targeting journalists is bad, I#m going to lose hope.
Really? let them get weapons? Israel wont sacrifice its population to get the moral high ground, and people have linked to you what legit targets in war, not that you cant retaliate if those get hit.
|
On November 18 2012 21:57 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:39 silynxer wrote:
One sided is a bit different from rubbish and if their sources are bad it should be no problem to find wrong Aljazeera articles (I'm actually interested and I would change my opinion of Aljazeera if you could show me this).
I understand that Hamas targets civilian positions, the rockets are obviously a kind of terrorist action to instill fear. What I mean is Hamas would surely like to target leaders of Israel as surgical as Israel targets their leaders but they can't. Destroying military bases or even substantially damaging them is also off the table for them with what they got (while Israel can damage Hamas' military capabilities quite severely and does). From their perspective there is no reason to target military bases for that reason, because the terror component would be lost. Not to condone any of this.
Again would you really be more happy about aimed attacks from Hamas on your leaders or important infrastructure?
[EDIT]: Have you an example of this kind of disinformation? Because you still cannot target journalists on a whim and I disagree that civilians become valid targets by doing propaganda. Might as well target schools because of indoctrination.
You are right that this is was not a strike to blackout the media (yeah I implied that and that's my bad).
Well said m4inbrain. The reason i trust my government is that so far they have acted willing to defend me. So far in this thread videos have been linked with the disinformation including rockets injuring and killing people in tel-aviv, hitting the Israeli Parliament, downing a Israeli plane and more. I dont have a link to them actually putting peoples lives at risks but when they are giving their population the sense they are winning they are less likely to loose public support and not mind being used as shields (i linked a while back a Reuters tweet about them firing rockets from downtown gaza wile people were cheering them on).
You should NEVER trust your government. Not just as israeli, but in general. You ALWAYS need to reflect on their actions. We germans learned that the hard way (and the US is slowly getting there), sad to see you people do the same mistake (of not reflecting).
|
On November 18 2012 22:00 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:55 silynxer wrote:
Then why not allow other Arab countries to provide them with high precision weapons and if they fuck up (i.e. target something invalid) don't let any further weapons through? I know why and you know why, because it would be worse for Israel by any measurable standard (like Israels attacks on Gaza are worse by any measurable standard, where measurable does not include the moral standard you prescribe). And also what DerNebel said.
Like I said Goozen, do you have an example of medical sources being wrong or even being usually wrong? Just saying this because you conflate news from Gaza with propaganda from Hamas doesn't make it true (and as you can see if I'm mistaken I admit it).
Uhm that NATO does horrible shit and calls it legal does not mean Israel may do horrible shit. Come on if we can't agree that targeting journalists is bad, I#m going to lose hope. Really? let them get weapons? Israel wont sacrifice its population to get the moral high ground, and people have linked to you what legit targets in war, not that you cant retaliate if those get hit.
Edit: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4008561,00.html
http://honestreporting.com/return-of-the-living-dead-2/
You need to remember that they are accountable to no one
And the best example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin#Massacre_allegations Claims were of 400-500 dead when in truth it was 46-56
|
On November 18 2012 22:00 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:55 silynxer wrote:
Then why not allow other Arab countries to provide them with high precision weapons and if they fuck up (i.e. target something invalid) don't let any further weapons through? I know why and you know why, because it would be worse for Israel by any measurable standard (like Israels attacks on Gaza are worse by any measurable standard, where measurable does not include the moral standard you prescribe). And also what DerNebel said.
Like I said Goozen, do you have an example of medical sources being wrong or even being usually wrong? Just saying this because you conflate news from Gaza with propaganda from Hamas doesn't make it true (and as you can see if I'm mistaken I admit it).
Uhm that NATO does horrible shit and calls it legal does not mean Israel may do horrible shit. Come on if we can't agree that targeting journalists is bad, I#m going to lose hope. Really? let them get weapons? Israel wont sacrifice its population to get the moral high ground, and people have linked to you what legit targets in war, not that you cant retaliate if those get hit.
Like I said before, this is a ridiculous proposition. I made it so you can challenge your view that Hamas rockets are worse than Israeli ones because they are targeted at civilians (or rather shot loosely in the direction of civilian targets). Or in short that intention is more important than outcome.
The logic you use to argue targeting TV stations is fine is so far fetched that by the same logic targeting schools because of indoctrination would be fine as well.
Looking forward to your links and thanks for your efforts (seriously). But remember
medical sources.
|
On November 18 2012 21:21 Goozen wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_TVShow nested quote +Al-Aqsa TV (Arabic: شبكـة الأقصـى) is the official Hamas-run television channel.[1] Its programming includes news talk, children's shows (such as Tomorrow's Pioneers, which allegedly promotes violence and antisemitism[2]), and religiously inspired entertainment.[3] It is currently directed by Palestinian Legislative Council member Fathi Ahmad Hammad.[4]
so is there any media in israel, that supports IDF's action with no condition, or any show with material which might be propaganda, or hate speech, or brewing fear and hatred by teaching children how are jews are hated by all muslims/everyone/neighboring countries.
there is quite a bit bias here.
how is it ethical to kill people or delibiretly puting lives in danger to stop media broadcast?
|
On November 18 2012 21:31 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:16 silynxer wrote:
Do you have examples where Aljazeera was rubbish? The Israeli public is very forgiving to IDF actions, unlike some UN reports (Goldstone for example), so that isn't all that good of a reason to trust them. I don't think because something is an official branch of Hamas Israel gets the automatic right to destroy or disable it (why disable a TV station?).
The armed opposition of Hamas in form of rockets does not really target anything because they lack the technology to target, I'm sure if Israel would provide them with better rockets Hamas would target more valid stuff as argued before (but would you really like"surgical" strikes from Hamas more than these unaimed attacks?). And before you misunderstand of course this is ridiculous as a proposition, I only say this so that you can try to compare Qassam rockets to targeted assassinations. First of all the rockets Hamas fires are accurate to a few hundred meters and there are no lack of army bases nearby that they could aim for and yet the aim at civilian population centers. Their intentions are crystal clear.As far as Al Jazeera, they quoted a source thats not trust worthy and there are plenty of cases where they have had 1 sided coverage.
This doesn't mean a thing. Stop quoting IDF's propaganda without using your brain : you still need the location of the target, assure he is not crowded with civilians, etc.
Gaza is not a desert, it's one of the highest population zone in the world, with 1,710,257 in 360 square kilometer and 43% of the population is between 0 and 14 years, so with a "chirurgical" attack accurate to a "few hundred meters" you can still kill plenty of people (and I mean kids).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html
|
On November 18 2012 21:57 m4inbrain wrote:
Yeah. You missed something there.
"NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milosević in power."
[...]
I just give up, you are hopeless.
Just for the future, if someone actually tries to argue with you, stop fucking fingerpointing as if you are 10 years old, and start thinking about what people say.
I didn't quote everything, I put the link and a very short description why the link might be relevant (and it is relevant since it shows what international law says and a precedent - as you said, there are plenty others even more gruesome).
"IDF's targeting of the Hamas television building for propaganda purposes was an incidental aim of its primary goal of disabling the Hamas military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Hamas in power".
It seems like a perfectly fine justification, I don't understand what is amiss.
And still, the building was not destroyed, only it's communication antenna, and there is a dispute between Hamas health ministry and IDF if 6 journalists where lightly/moderately wounded or not.
We are blowing things out of proportion.
Anyway, don't give up, there is always hope 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
