|
On July 24 2014 10:15 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Eventually shit in Palestine will get super shit due to Israel blockades and they will crack, probably attempt some kind of desperation attack.
Contrary to popular belief, the only thing the blockade actually filters is arms.
BTW, remember the huge quantities of cement that was delivered to Gaza for the purpose of rebuilding the city? Yeah, Hamas used that in the tunnels that it dug into Israel.
|
On July 24 2014 10:20 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:15 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Eventually shit in Palestine will get super shit due to Israel blockades and they will crack, probably attempt some kind of desperation attack. Contrary to popular belief, the only thing the blockade actually filters is arms. BTW, remember the huge quantities of cement that was delivered to Gaza for the purpose of rebuilding the city? Yeah, Hamas used that in the tunnels that it dug into Israel.
I don't remember anything about this but i'm shocked you can get away with that in the modern day.
|
On July 24 2014 09:56 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:42 soon.Cloak wrote:On July 24 2014 09:30 WhiteDog wrote:Saying that my arguments are non sequitor does not make them non sequitor. Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean they're not logic  For exemple, dropping 2 000 tons of explosiv on 360 km² with high density is not indiscriminate, and this is perfectly logic by itself. The casualties are pretty clear : the number of civilians who died is high, not to mention the reason for the attacks are fraudulent to begin with. You can twist words as you wish, and discard report as you wish, the fact is the casualties are ridiculous and saying that Israel "care" about civilians is denying reality. In fact it is not even important : Israel is killing civilian, and a lot of them. I said Israel is minimizing casualties by invading on foot. You said that Hamas turned down the truce because nobody informed them. That's a non-sequitor in my book. And you keep repeating those numbers, as if they're supposed to mean something. Is 2000 tons of explosives in that area a lot? Do you have any standard to compare that against? Or is it just "look, big numbers, Israel is indiscriminate"? On July 24 2014 09:30 Djzapz wrote:On July 24 2014 09:25 soon.Cloak wrote:
Israel could have sticked to bombing them. Instead, they invaded. What kind of cheap ass logic is that? The deaths have ramped up since the invasion have they not? Not only is more of an affront to their right to auto determination and a step up to their oppression, it's a really shitty way to take care of people! See the post just below this one. Deaths have ramped up, but they'd be much higher if Israel took out the targets they wanted by simply bombing Gaza. On July 24 2014 09:33 m4ini wrote:Apology for the UN building. Funny enough considering that so far (afaik, might be wrong) there's no apology for the kids on the beach, which in my mind demands one too. I want to say "telling, isn't it", but then another one comes around telling me how that is something to apologize for - can't be arsed to have that discussion. It's like you're trying to distract me from the main argument. We're talking about how Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. We can discuss Israel's lack of apology after we finish this conversation. YOu know, Israel could care lot more about the civilians if they would not bomb them at all. Or invade their little dayz-map size of a country. Yeah sure, they could do worse. But why should we be happy about that? What kind of respect for life does someone need to have to justify bombing your house despite you not leaving it, because, you were informed your house would get bombed. WTF? What would you do if your relatives were killed by a foreign country because one block away from their house a terrorist hides? How do you justify that?
I'm doing one argument at a time. The first was that Israel was not attempting to minimize civilian casualties. You agree they could do worse. So we agree on that point.
Next- Israel isn't just calling houses and bombing them because they think the house is ugly. They're bombing it because it's used to fire rockets from, it's used by Hamas for some other reason, etc...That is the justification for bombing the houses. And if someone let's Hamas fire a rocket from their house, and then doesn't leave when Israel warns them, what do you expect Israel to do?
On July 24 2014 09:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On July 24 2014 09:39 Djzapz wrote:On July 24 2014 09:31 soon.Cloak wrote:
"Avoid civilian casualties" is far from "if we killed any civilians, we failed". It is relative to the difficulty of not hitting civilians. Israel wants to hit certain Hamas targets. If they would simply carpet bomb Gaza, they would succeed, but kill a large number of civilians. If they bombed specific targets, they would kill less civilians. If they would bomb specific targets, and warn the residents, and abort some strikes, and agree to a humanitarian truce, they'll kill even less civilians. Israel is doing the third. So yes, a large number of civilians have been killed, but that in no way takes away from the fact that Israel is trying to avoid (read: minimize) those casualties.
Nobody thinks that avoiding civilian casualties means to be perfect about it, it means to be reasonable. Israel is "doing the third" option you list, why not the 4th that's unmentioned where you pick your targets more carefully and you don't pull the trigger when there are kids running around. But you see that's not the orders they're given because there's such hatred of the enemy it's like they don't matter. Israel is only as careful as the international community is asking them to be. It's because of people who flip the fuck out that they're being even a little careful like they are now. Without people flipping out, they'd raze the stuff, evict even more people from their homes, steal even more land from defenseless people. It's not just the killing that's a problem here. As for the guy's response with theoretical measures taken by Israel and excuses for why despite those they're failing to keep casualties at a reasonable level, that's pathetic and if you think what they're doing is worth the 600 deaths and the hundreds more that are to come, IDK what to think of you... First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties. Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't. Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing. Its not pedantic if its going to save lives, its a pertinent issue. If a fireman rescues three out of a family of four from a burning building and then wanders off for no reason leaving the fourth to die you wouldn't call it pedantic for questioning why he did that. Especially not if he started the fire.On July 24 2014 09:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 09:33 m4ini wrote:Apology for the UN building. Funny enough considering that so far (afaik, might be wrong) there's no apology for the kids on the beach, which in my mind demands one too. I want to say "telling, isn't it", but then another one comes around telling me how that is something to apologize for - can't be arsed to have that discussion. Earlier in the thread i linked to a Channel 4 interview in which the hilariously named interviewer Jon Snow tries to get an Israeli spokesperson to admit that the killing of those children was an error. He refused to do so. Without being extremely logically strict its reasonably safe to assume then that it was deliberate. The worst thing about this interview was the fact that at any time the Israeli guy could have said "you know nothing, Jon Snow" and the argument would have been won, but he didn't even do that. It wasn't intentional and we are really sorry to see four children being killed. I think the air force is taking the maximum care not to hit children. And it was an accident because it was an area that we warned would be bombed, because there was a great concentration of weapons. And unfortunately they didn't take out the children. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/gaza-crisis-humanitarian-truce-due-to-start-live-updates#block-53c79169e4b05bebd9ac3390Definitely qualified, but just as definitely an apology and an admission of a mistake. Funny. Its not an apology. To say that you are sorry to see something happen is not an apology. Its also not a admission of a mistake, its blaming the event on someone else. Maybe i'm reading it differently to you.On July 24 2014 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 09:40 RezJ wrote:On July 24 2014 09:05 Djzapz wrote:
I think Israel would be criticized a whole lot more harshly than this if it were essentially any other country on Earth, but they get a pass because they're Israel and it's as if the history of their people and their generally admittedly harsh circumstances made it okay to butcher hundreds of innocent Palestinians in response to attacks by terrorist group, a minority. I would argue the exact opposite. Ever since its inception, the UN has condemned Israel more times than all other countries in the world combined. Did it occur to you that this might have something to do with the behaviour of Israel? Right, because Syria and North Korea are so much less deserving of condemnation than Israel. I agree that the UN doesn't do enough to bring up human rights abuses elsewhere. It certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't bring them up when perpetrated by Israel.
The way this is being handled so far is good, its the way all human rights cases should be handled.
Think your "quotes" got a little messed up, hope you can still read this.
It's pedantic in that "Israel should prevent casualties more" is a very different argument than "Israel should prevent civilian casualties". The whole time I've been arguing the latter. You are now discussing the former. Ya, fair enough, for all I know Israel could be doing even more than their doing now. But considering how much they're already doing, I'm not entirely sure how much more they can do, while still stopping Hamas.
"We are sorry to see them killed" and "It was an accident" sounds like an apology to me. Yes, he did not use the word "apologize", but he took responsibility for it, and was sorry that it happened. That seems to be the two main aspects of an apology to me.
The UN thing is simply a point that the UN is biased, as is demonstrated by their ridiculous focus on Israel. I'm very much NOT saying that Israel should be excused because North Korea and Syria are worse. I'm supporting RezJ's position that the UN is not an unbiased third party.
On July 24 2014 09:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On July 24 2014 09:39 Djzapz wrote:On July 24 2014 09:31 soon.Cloak wrote:
"Avoid civilian casualties" is far from "if we killed any civilians, we failed". It is relative to the difficulty of not hitting civilians. Israel wants to hit certain Hamas targets. If they would simply carpet bomb Gaza, they would succeed, but kill a large number of civilians. If they bombed specific targets, they would kill less civilians. If they would bomb specific targets, and warn the residents, and abort some strikes, and agree to a humanitarian truce, they'll kill even less civilians. Israel is doing the third. So yes, a large number of civilians have been killed, but that in no way takes away from the fact that Israel is trying to avoid (read: minimize) those casualties.
Nobody thinks that avoiding civilian casualties means to be perfect about it, it means to be reasonable. Israel is "doing the third" option you list, why not the 4th that's unmentioned where you pick your targets more carefully and you don't pull the trigger when there are kids running around. But you see that's not the orders they're given because there's such hatred of the enemy it's like they don't matter. Israel is only as careful as the international community is asking them to be. It's because of people who flip the fuck out that they're being even a little careful like they are now. Without people flipping out, they'd raze the stuff, evict even more people from their homes, steal even more land from defenseless people. It's not just the killing that's a problem here. As for the guy's response with theoretical measures taken by Israel and excuses for why despite those they're failing to keep casualties at a reasonable level, that's pathetic and if you think what they're doing is worth the 600 deaths and the hundreds more that are to come, IDK what to think of you... First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties. Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't. Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing. First I don't necessarily believe that going on foot reduces civilian casualties at all, it might do the contrary. I've also previously said that the US isn't necessarily a good example to follow. As for the warning civilian thing, I have to imagine that it's not hugely effective considering that unless they're really really nice, they don't necessarily want their targets to know their next more. And you say that asking "they can do more " is pedantic is a fucking disgusting piece of shit thing to say considering we're talking about hundreds of human lives. Pedantic... even if I were way wrong and there's absolutely nothing more we can do to save those lives (which would be a profoundly naive thing to believe), it would still be fucked up thing to say. You have to have so little regard for the lives of those people, it's a little bit sick. It's one of the first questions that should be asked and it should always be asked and re-asked in every conflict ever.
Why in the world would Israel invade on foot if they could do so from the air, if not more minimizing casualties. As it is, 30 Israeli soldiers were killed. That would not have happened with drone strikes. Going in on foot is a huge display of mercy to the Gazan civilians. Or can you think of another good reason for it?
As for pedantic- I was imprecise. See above. Relative to the argument of "Israel is just as indiscriminate as Hamas", which is how this whole thing started, the argument of "Israel should be doing more, even though they're already doing a lot, and more than my country is doing" is significantly weaker. But yes, I agree, pedantic was the wrong word to use, and I apologize for that.
On July 24 2014 10:02 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +First off, we agree that Israel is doing the third option, and not either of the first two. So we agree that Israel is avoiding civilian casualties.
Now, you want Israel to avoid casualties even more, and that they are only doing the minimum they have to do. That's not true at all. What country in the world warns civilians that they're going to bomb the area? I know America sure doesn't. What country goes in by foot, when they can safely bomb from the air? Again, America sure doesn't.
Either way, the question of "but can they do more" seems somewhat pedantic to me, when they're already doing a lot, and going above and beyond what my own country is doing. It's not pedantic at all. The numbers speak for themselves. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/gaza-counter/?clsrdLet's look at the best possible scenario for Israeli forces and say that the 69 unknowns were militants or had some sort of combat role that made them legal targets. That barely puts the number of killed militants over the number of killed children - 144. For all of Hamas's lack of scruples in targeting civilians, only 3 Israeli civilians have been killed, compared with 443 Palestinian civilians. Sure, the low number of Israeli civilian casualties is due to the superiority of Israeli defences, but to that I say, if their defences are so good, why go on the offence at all? It's because Israeli policymakers do not value Palestinian lives anywhere near the level that they value Israeli lives. Sure, all leaders everywhere will put their people first, but the disparity in value here is horrifically absurd. Let's say that there was a homegrown Israeli anti-government terrorist cell operating in Tel Aviv. Would the Israeli government authorise an operation that would result in five hundred Israeli civilian deaths to take out this cell? Show nested quote +What effective use of military force would you suggest that would both stop Hamas and minimize civilian casualties? Perhaps there are none, but why ask such a narrow question? Instead ask - why is military force needed at all? Look for a political solution. If all political solutions have been rejected by Hamas, then just be content with staying on the defence. You'll lose a few civilians due to rockets every now and then, but the sum total of civilian casualties would be much less than this operation, which means that you cannot say that refusing to retaliate for every little rocket would be the lesser evil unless you believe that the life of one Israeli civilian is worth more than the lives of a dozen Palestinian civilians.
"Why go on the offense at all"
Get woken up in the middle of the night a couple of times to run to a bomb shelter, than then tell me that Israel shouldn't go on the offensive at all. Living under fire is absurd, and nobody should have to do that.
And no, they would not take out the cell, for precisely the reason you're saying- every country values its own civilians more than anyone else's. Not sure what you're proving from that.
And that last paragraph- Israel may be willing to have a truce if Hamas stopped shooting rockets at them for the past decade, even though we've had a truce the past two years. And it's crazy that you think Israel should have to suffer trauma and death, because there are more people killed in offense than defense. Do you really think a single country in the world would put up with that?
|
|
|
On July 24 2014 10:20 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:15 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Eventually shit in Palestine will get super shit due to Israel blockades and they will crack, probably attempt some kind of desperation attack. Contrary to popular belief, the only thing the blockade actually filters is arms. BTW, remember the huge quantities of cement that was delivered to Gaza for the purpose of rebuilding the city? Yeah, Hamas used that in the tunnels that it dug into Israel.
Are you just saying that Israel is stupid enough to bomb the things it paid for?
Because stupidity and incompetence are good reasons to kill children you know?
EDIT : I try to give you an argument for Tsahal to kill children, no offence.
|
On July 24 2014 10:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend.
God, I'm typing as fast as I can, and I have these massive posts responding to 5 people at once...tell me about it, lol...
|
When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution.
You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.)
I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage.
|
On July 24 2014 10:25 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend. God, I'm typing as fast as I can, and I have these massive posts responding to 5 people at once...tell me about it, lol...
I'll quit for now, we'll talk about the flechettes later. ;>
|
On July 24 2014 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution. You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.) I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage.
Entirely probable and likely. I'm just throwing some thoughts out there, and the whole situation struck me as a little odd.
Then again i probably sound a little odd having reread what i posted :/
|
On July 24 2014 10:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution. You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.) I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage. Entirely probable and likely. I'm just throwing some thoughts out there, and the whole situation struck me as a little odd. Then again i probably sound a little odd having reread what i posted :/
Depending on what part of the UK you're coming from, you sound odd anyway.
That being said, i do agree with warlock. Even though i think it's the first one, to destroy evidence.
|
On July 24 2014 10:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution. You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.) I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage. Entirely probable and likely. I'm just throwing some thoughts out there, and the whole situation struck me as a little odd. Then again i probably sound a little odd having reread what i posted :/ Depending on what part of the UK you're coming from, you sound odd anyway. That being said, i do agree with warlock. Even though i think it's the first one, to destroy evidence.
LOL!
actually i have a fairly neutral accent. I don't speak like the queen but you can understand what i'm saying when i say it, if you know what i mean.
This thread has sucked my day into a giant black hole. I've had enough for the night now. Back for more tomorrow i'm sure.
|
On July 24 2014 10:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:29 m4ini wrote:On July 24 2014 10:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution. You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.) I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage. Entirely probable and likely. I'm just throwing some thoughts out there, and the whole situation struck me as a little odd. Then again i probably sound a little odd having reread what i posted :/ Depending on what part of the UK you're coming from, you sound odd anyway. That being said, i do agree with warlock. Even though i think it's the first one, to destroy evidence. LOL! actually i have a fairly neutral accent. I don't speak like the queen but you can understand what i'm saying when i say it, if you know what i mean. This thread has sucked my day into a giant black hole. I've had enough for the night now. Back for more tomorrow i'm sure.
I'm a german, living in wales. Guess you understand where i'm coming from when i say that then. 
I agree, i'll call it a day too. Was interesting though, and in the end after the trolls were gone, a good debate was possible.
Ninight.
edit: the queen is german anyway, she just doesn't march like we do.
|
Get woken up in the middle of the night a couple of times to run to a bomb shelter, than then tell me that Israel shouldn't go on the offensive at all. Living under fire is absurd, and nobody should have to do that.
And no, they would not take out the cell, for precisely the reason you're saying- every country values its own civilians more than anyone else's. Not sure what you're proving from that.
And that last paragraph- Israel may be willing to have a truce if Hamas stopped shooting rockets at them for the past decade, even though we've had a truce the past two years. And it's crazy that you think Israel should have to suffer trauma and death, because there are more people killed in offense than defense. Do you really think a single country in the world would put up with that?
Well, when you say "nobody should have to do that", clearly you should be in favour of an approach that doesn't involve military forces and doesn't subject the Palestinian civilians to exactly what you are describing.
As for my example, I want to express my point, that Israeli forces value Palestinian civilian life far, far less than they do Israeli civilian life. If it was a 1-to-1 thing, like "if I bomb a hundred Palestinian children to kill a dozen militants who posed a credible threat to an equal number of israeli children", I might be able to understand. But the ratio here is absurd. Hamas is a laughable threat due to the sheer strength of the Israeli military and does not warrant the brute force being applied, however discriminate.
Look, it seems that your main argument is just that the Israeli government is doing what any other government in its place would do, and I just don't know enough about political science to debate that, I just don't think that it's a good enough standard. Also, my other point stands - how is this military action going to stop Hamas from launching rockets in the future? It's not a death blow, because if Hamas goes, someone worse will step in, so what is it? Punishment? Deterrence? How's that worked for Israel the last few times they tried it?
|
On July 24 2014 10:15 Jockmcplop wrote:
Some random thoughts i'm having while sat here. Not well thought out (its 2.15am)so go ahead and crush them if you want:
1. Israel stops using any force against Palestinians for one month. Watch the entire world turn against Hamas the moment they launch a rocket. This could also work the other way round, but i doubt it.
2. Both sides seem unable to stop killing civilians, maybe its time for someone else to step in and force the issue. This war has gone on for FAR too long.
3. Is it me or are the circumstances that kicked off this latest debacle a little bit suspicious. When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution.
1. Then how do you explain the countless instances of terrorism and rocket firing onto Israel from the strip in the last 10 years, plus two unilateral ceasefires Israel withstood while being fired at?
2. I'm all for that, but the world would rather sit idly and condemn either side.
3. I think it was done by Jews, and it sucks. Yes, Jewish terrorism exists (although it is rare - see wikipedia). The difference though, is that while the Israeli government harshly condemns these kind of actions, and preaches tolerance to its people, Hamas is bringing up a generation that is brainwashed with hatred towards the other side.
|
On July 24 2014 10:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/gaza-crisis-humanitarian-truce-due-to-start-live-updates#block-53c79169e4b05bebd9ac3390
Definitely qualified, but just as definitely an apology and an admission of a mistake.
Is it. You do know they blame the kids for playing there? Not to mention, read careful, and see that this is as dishonest as it gets. First of all: journalists were on the beach, reporting first hand. The "airforce" is trying to avoid dead kids. Interestingly enough, it wasn't the airforce attacking the beach, but it was shelled by artillery, and said artillery adjusted their fire after they missed the kids the first time. There's pictures of the beach still smoking, shot by journalists (not hamas), no weapons. No terrorists. What were they shooting at then? Show nested quote +No, I don't know how it's used to avoid civilian deaths. But I do know that it's legal internationally, and I would presume that's because it has militaristic advantages. I'm not saying that Israel is unwilling to have civilians get killed- I'm saying there's a multitude of ways they're minimizing that number.
The white phosphoreous was from the last war. Stop bringing it up. It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant that they only just stopped acting like warcriminals? Apparently it's relevant that the population in palestine supported the hamas with roughly 70%, it dropped recently to 40% - and yet some people still say "kinda all of palestine" is supporting the hamas. What now? If the support for the hamas is dropping so hard, the retaliationstrikes are used against people who don't even support the hamas, which makes it murder - or the drop was "too recently" to be relevant. How does it change anything that they were forced by the international community (note: they didn't decide by themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have used it in the first place) to stop firing prohibited ammo? It's absolutely retarded to discard something because "well yesterday they said so and so". They still fricking used it, against civilians. YOU are arguing they do so much to prevent civilian deaths. I tell you: no, they don't. The international community does. About flechette-ammo. You're playing dumb now, and i will bite, solely because it's amusing to see a person playing dumb because he doesn't want to admit something. Let's see. A flechette-round is basically tons of nails (rather, darts, to make them fly further and make them deadlier) wrapped around an explosive. It literally is a pipebomb filled with nails, just more sophisticated. You know what pipebombs with nails are used for? To kill and injure as many people as possible. And the same goes for flechette-ammo. They're designed to maw down everything that is in the radius of the hit (in fact, not just the radius of the hit, but a couple of magnitudes further). Feel free to tell me how that is "restraint". Oh btw, they're not banned by the geneva conventions, right. But they were just ruled to be against humanitarian law. How long you think will it take for israel to declare that those small weapons of mass destruction (that's what they are, just a smaller scale and certainly nothing for "surgical strikes", ever seen a surgical strike by clusterbombs?) will be decommitioned (don't know the spelling) - and then claim it's because they wanna protect civilians?
They admitted it was an accident. What were they shooting at? I have no idea- that's what an "accident" is. I assume they got bad intelligence, or a missile was accidentally fired, or someone got a mixed message, or something. Again, an "accident"
We're arguing about this war. Was Israel less careful two years ago? Sure, for all I know. But I'm arguing that Israel is currently attempting to minimize casualties, and that's what we've been discussing, so Cast Lead is irrelevant. Or to put it this way- it's been 3 weeks, and I've only seen a single media source mention the use of that. That would imply that Israel is, in fact, not using it. So they are doing more now than they did then.
As for flechette-ammo. I'm not sure what you want me to tell you. The fact that they are permitted by international law, while mustard gas (for example) is forbidden, speaks to their legitimate use. They have a large radius, I got that, but I have no reason to assume there's not a legitimate reason Israel is using it. You still haven't responded to the converse- if Israel really didn't care about Hamas, they could do much less to prevent casualties than they're doing. I don't care what their "motivation" is. Earlier it was claimed that Israel is just as indiscriminate as Hamas, and I have yet to see you demonstrate to me that that's true.
On July 24 2014 10:15 Jockmcplop wrote:
Some random thoughts i'm having while sat here. Not well thought out (its 2.15am)so go ahead and crush them if you want:
1. Israel stops using any force against Palestinians for one month. Watch the entire world turn against Hamas the moment they launch a rocket. This could also work the other way round, but i doubt it.
2. Both sides seem unable to stop killing civilians, maybe its time for someone else to step in and force the issue. This war has gone on for FAR too long.
3. Is it me or are the circumstances that kicked off this latest debacle a little bit suspicious. When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution.
There has been an official truce for the past couple of years. But still there have been hundreds of rockets over that time. You only asked for a month, but there's been more than that.
On July 24 2014 10:17 m4ini wrote:
Hm, was editing rather than writing a new post. Guess it's time for me to go to bed. -,-
Have a good night. As I said before, if nothing else, debating let's me flesh out my position in my own head, and I appreciate others having the debate with me for that (however much I disagree with them ).
On July 24 2014 10:18 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:09 RezJ wrote:On July 24 2014 10:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend. It's 4:09 AM here. It's alright btw, I'm glad we can have a civilized discussion on TL even though the subject is sensitive. You should have seen it earlier today lol
It was much more civil, or much less? I only jumped on board at pg.14
|
Hamas is bringing up a generation that is brainwashed with hatred towards the other side.
No, that's pretty much on Israel now. That might've been the case decades ago (not literally), but the retaliationstrikes against innocent targets will breed more terrorists than the hamas ever could.
edit:
as a ninight bonbon
You still haven't responded to the converse- if Israel really didn't care about Hamas, they could do much less to prevent casualties than they're doing.
They would (edit: do less), if they could. As i said. They are pressured into their current behaviour by the international community. They don't chose to be careful. They're being told and punished not to. Israel is isolated, they absolutely can NOT risk embargos or sanctions, it would literally sink the state.
They simply can't kill even more civilians, if they wanted or not. If Israel loses support in the rest of the world, it'll end in a disaster.
Every Brits sound odd, don't they?
Walisians and scottsmen are worse, one sounds like they don't open their mouth while talking, the other one sounds like he's eating a pillow. And i only meet them when they're drunk (in the pub), that doesn't help either. I'm just sitting there smiling, while nodding my head and being absolutely clueless about what they're actually talking.
|
On July 24 2014 10:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2014 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution. You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.) I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage. Entirely probable and likely. I'm just throwing some thoughts out there, and the whole situation struck me as a little odd. Then again i probably sound a little odd having reread what i posted :/ Depending on what part of the UK you're coming from, you sound odd anyway. That being said, i do agree with warlock. Even though i think it's the first one, to destroy evidence.
Every Brits sound odd, don't they?
Jokes appart with my rosbeef neighbors, the Israel/palestinian problem is a big shitty-cake, and I feel sad to acknowledge that we all have to eat a part of it. In 1947 our ancesters gave a land to lovely people but forgot that there were people living there already, growing sheeps and goats. It's our ancesters mistakes, and we must deal with it.
|
It should be clear that I care more about the results than the methods. Flechette ammo? I don't care. Warnings before air strikes? I don't care. What I do care about is how much damage that is either being done or being prevented by each method. So far, I've read of only one civilian casualty from flechette shells (dated 17 July), so it doesn't seem like a big deal. As for the warnings before air strikes, clearly that's not enough considering all the civilians that have been killed. The point is that just because Israeli forces are or are not doing something in particular doesn't mean it's good or it's bad, what matters is the effects of what they've done or not done. Unless Israeli forces are maiming dozens with these flechette shells, reporting on them is irrelevant and unfair, since it implies something that's not happening.
|
On July 24 2014 10:46 Warlock40 wrote:
It should be clear that I care more about the results than the methods. Flechette ammo? I don't care. Warnings before air strikes? I don't care. What I do care about is how much damage that is either being done or being prevented by each method. So far, I've read of only one civilian casualty from flechette shells (dated 17 July), so it doesn't seem like a big deal. As for the warnings before air strikes, clearly that's not enough considering all the civilians that have been killed. The point is that just because Israeli forces are or are not doing something in particular doesn't mean it's good or it's bad, what matters is the effects of what they've done or not done. Unless Israeli forces are maiming dozens with these flechette shells, reporting on them is irrelevant and unfair, since it implies something that's not happening.
One dead since the 17th. From 6 rounds fired in total. Don't discard stuff like flechette ammo easily.
edit: actually i lied.
http://www.btselem.org/firearms/flechette
edit: basically, israel will use every weapon they want to as long as it's not banned by law (and sometimes even that doesn't matter, see white phosphorous). Even though the weapon is ruled inhumane.
|
On July 24 2014 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +When people are burned alive its usually a way of destroying evidence. I haven't really researched this or whether there has been a definite answer to who killed the Palestinian kid, but its an odd method of execution. You destroy evidence by burning the body after you've killed it. (See: Nazis.) You burn someone alive to cause massive amounts of pain and agony, maybe because you really, really hate that person, or lose all rationale due to negative emotions, or both. (See: tire necklacing by gangsters.) I don't think the death of that Palestinian civilian was part of any conspiracy, just a horrible, horrible act of malice and rage.
Ya, if nothing else, we can all agree to that. And they were hugely responsible for inciting this war. Crazy amount of blood on their hands. Disgusting in the deepest sense of the word...
On July 24 2014 10:26 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 10:25 soon.Cloak wrote:On July 24 2014 10:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I feel kinda bad for cloak. You need to call for some backup my friend. God, I'm typing as fast as I can, and I have these massive posts responding to 5 people at once...tell me about it, lol... I'll quit for now, we'll talk about the flechettes later. ;>
Responded, but feel free to go to sleep. But disclaimer- I got off from work today, but have work tomorrow, so chances are I won't be able to respond until at least mid-afternoon.
On July 24 2014 10:37 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +Get woken up in the middle of the night a couple of times to run to a bomb shelter, than then tell me that Israel shouldn't go on the offensive at all. Living under fire is absurd, and nobody should have to do that.
And no, they would not take out the cell, for precisely the reason you're saying- every country values its own civilians more than anyone else's. Not sure what you're proving from that.
And that last paragraph- Israel may be willing to have a truce if Hamas stopped shooting rockets at them for the past decade, even though we've had a truce the past two years. And it's crazy that you think Israel should have to suffer trauma and death, because there are more people killed in offense than defense. Do you really think a single country in the world would put up with that? Well, when you say "nobody should have to do that", clearly you should be in favour of an approach that doesn't involve military forces and doesn't subject the Palestinian civilians to exactly what you are describing. As for my example, I want to express my point, that Israeli forces value Palestinian civilian life far, far less than they do Israeli civilian life. If it was a 1-to-1 thing, like "if I bomb a hundred Palestinian children to kill a dozen militants who posed a credible threat to an equal number of israeli children", I might be able to understand. But the ratio here is absurd. Hamas is a laughable threat due to the sheer strength of the Israeli military and does not warrant the brute force being applied, however discriminate. Look, it seems that your main argument is just that the Israeli government is doing what any other government in its place would do, and I just don't know enough about political science to debate that, I just don't think that it's a good enough standard. Also, my other point stands - how is this military action going to stop Hamas from launching rockets in the future? It's not a death blow, because if Hamas goes, someone worse will step in, so what is it? Punishment? Deterrence? How's that worked for Israel the last few times they tried it?
It's war now, and Israel is bombing and attacking its enemies, so obviously Gazans are in danger. You suggested that Israel end the war and, during "peace time", put up with indiscriminate rocket attacks. That is what I'm calling ridiculous.
My main argument is that Israel's actions are justifiable, and I'm using my (admittedly limited) knowledge of world history to demonstrate that. I would not say that "Since America is doing it, Israel can do it", but I would say that Israel is going above and beyond the regular standards.
And how will it stop Hamas? I don't know, and that's a question I'm sure the military experts around the world can say more than I. But it lessened (though didn't stop) the attacks between Cast Lead and now, and it's possible that a Gaza ruled by the PA and Abbas would be much more peaceful to Israel than Hamas (read:terrorists). But that's speculation, because, like I said, I'm no military expert, and I'm hugely lacking the information that they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
