|
On August 01 2014 22:07 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 20:55 TommyP wrote:On August 01 2014 20:46 JustPassingBy wrote:On August 01 2014 20:40 TommyP wrote:
Can someone explain to me why people claim that a genocide of Palestinians is happening? Is it just the civilian death toll in Gaza? Why would Hamas end the ceasefire if there was a "genocide" of their people happening (and when it sounds like they're getting dominated by Israel.) Well, a genocide is a deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. What is currently happening definitely qualifies as a genocide. In fact, so does every war, once it takes place in more densely populated areas. Exactly, which is why I don't understand.To me it just seems like a terrible side effect to this terrible war. I don't think it's Israel's intent to kill Civilians, it just happens with how this war is being fought, so I don't see why everyone is calling Obama a murder and hearing people say what Israel is doing is just as bad as what hitler did but I don't think the deliberate intent to tkill civilians for their race/religion is there, it just happens when there's thousands of missiles hitting a small strip of land and they don't have the Highest missile defense technology like Israel but that's just my opinion and there's a lot more people with a better understanding of this conflict and previous ones dating back decades. I don't want to believe that Israel is killing civilians on purpose either, but it is hard to believe after Israel attacked a UN run all-girls school, killing 15 civilians who thought they were safe.
DUH, because that's not what they want, libtards and Hamas want people to believe that.
The best solution is to have a demilitarized Gaza, Isreal then can start removing blockades, the hardest part is to remove the terrorist group Hamas, and for this to happen Palestinians and muslims over the world need to stop crying and lying to themselves that they're above everything, this mentality is why the whole region is backward. Many other countries have had to give up their lands before in exchange for peace and prosperity, it's not a new thing, if you choose to waste your civilians life over a piece of land and teach your children nothing but hatred for the juices, then you're gonna have to be prepared to lose and lose and lose. Here you can see the difference between Buddhism and Islam, one use the peaceful approach, not only does it gain respect from the other side you preserve the life of your own people, other is just relentless disregarding human rights an focus on a crazy religious dogma. This is why not all religions and cultures are equal, there are a certain backward mentality people, stop with the PC bullcrap.
OKay I'm outta here bay
User was temp banned for this post.
|
french media hard at work.
Gaza through the distorted lens of French media:An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html
|
On August 01 2014 22:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:32 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The ceasefire lasted only for hours. Also you don't kidnap a soldier, you kidnap civilians. Soldiers are prisoners of war. Lerner (IDF spokesman) said the soldier went missing during a battle with fighters who emerged from a concealed tunnel, one of whom blew himself up with an explosives belt. Don't know, the (German and Austrian) media puts it as kidnapping. Kind of makes sense, since the Hamas aren't a military organisation, so they cannot take prisoners of war, right?
Hamas has a wing that's a military organisation. Israeli politicians have declared their operation a war weeks ago. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
|
On August 01 2014 22:52 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:38 Big J wrote:On August 01 2014 22:32 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The ceasefire lasted only for hours. Also you don't kidnap a soldier, you kidnap civilians. Soldiers are prisoners of war. Lerner (IDF spokesman) said the soldier went missing during a battle with fighters who emerged from a concealed tunnel, one of whom blew himself up with an explosives belt. Don't know, the (German and Austrian) media puts it as kidnapping. Kind of makes sense, since the Hamas aren't a military organisation, so they cannot take prisoners of war, right? Hamas has a wing that's a military organisation. Israeli politicians have declared their operation a war weeks ago. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
It's paramilitary as far as I understand it.
And I can only replicate what I read. The biggest Austrian news website orf.at as well as the website of the German newspaper Die Zeit zeit.de used the German word "entführt", which translates to kidnapped. (Capture would be translated with "gefangen genommen" or something like that)
Rechecking, also "derstandard.at" (newspaper) used "entführt" and ard.de used "verschleppt" which again translates to kidnapped, not to captured. Same goes for when I google "soldier kidnapped", I get tons of English results for this story. So, I don't care whether you think it is not kidnapping and I don't care why they put it as kidnapping not capturing. If all my information sources use this word for it I won't use another.
I really don't know why I have to justify myself for quoting what the news are.
|
hmm; a two-state solution can't work while hamas is in power; and a one-state solution isn't workable. Personally, I'd just like to get this whole mess done with; sadly there's not enough international will to handle the expenses involved.
|
On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: Show nested quote +An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. Show nested quote +This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html
Yeah it's a shame, how they distorted how the manifestation pro gaza went is a shame in itself, nobody believe in them anymore. It's sad considering we were one of the first country world wide to have a critical stance with Israel back in 1967, and now our politicians and journalists completly reversed their point of view while the whole world is starting to see that we were right back then. Ludicrous.
I'm a subscriber of Le Monde and I'll end it because they suck.
On August 01 2014 23:13 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 01 2014 22:38 Big J wrote:On August 01 2014 22:32 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The ceasefire lasted only for hours. Also you don't kidnap a soldier, you kidnap civilians. Soldiers are prisoners of war. Lerner (IDF spokesman) said the soldier went missing during a battle with fighters who emerged from a concealed tunnel, one of whom blew himself up with an explosives belt. Don't know, the (German and Austrian) media puts it as kidnapping. Kind of makes sense, since the Hamas aren't a military organisation, so they cannot take prisoners of war, right? Hamas has a wing that's a military organisation. Israeli politicians have declared their operation a war weeks ago. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. It's paramilitary as far as I understand it. And I can only replicate what I read. The biggest Austrian news website orf.at as well as the website of the German newspaper Die Zeit zeit.de used the German word "entführt", which translates to kidnapped. (Capture would be translated with "gefangen genommen" or something like that) Rechecking, also "derstandard.at" (newspaper) used "entführt" and ard.de used "verschleppt" which again translates to kidnapped, not to captured. Same goes for when I google "soldier kidnapped", I get tons of English results for this story. So, I don't care whether you think it is not kidnapping and I don't care why they put it as kidnapping not capturing. If all my information sources use this word for it I won't use another. I really don't know why I have to justify myself for quoting what the news are.
That's because most newpapers in the world are pro israeli and/or lazy and directly take Israel elements of language with no critics whatsoever.
|
On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type.
You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do?
On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza.
That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped.
|
On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped.
Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict.
It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website:
Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce.
For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it.
|
On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory.
I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few:
http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212
And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier
On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Show nested quote +Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it.
Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire.
|
Israel and the States are already speaking of an abduction of the soldier.
In a statement later Friday the IDF said, "at approximately 09:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. Eastern), an attack was executed against IDF forces operating to decommission a tunnel. Initial indication suggests that an IDF soldier has been abducted by terrorists during the incident."
So, how do they already know Hamas won't give him access to the Red Cross or phone calls to his family? Calling the deeds of your opponent abductions and yours self-defense is propaganda and has nothing to do with how he is treated. You can call out Hamas for mistreating their prisoners of wars, but surely not for abductions.
But again, that is nitpicking 
|
Where's the international outrage about this?
Iraqi Christians are fleeing Mosul after Islamist militants threatened to kill them unless they converted to Islam or paid a "protection tax".
A statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) was read out at the city's mosques.
It called on Christians to comply by midday on Saturday or face death if they did not leave the northern city.
Isis has control of large parts of Syria and Iraq and said last month it was creating an Islamic caliphate.
The ultimatum cited a historic contract known as "dhimma," under which non-Muslims in Islamic societies who refuse to convert are offered protection if they pay a fee, called a "jizya".
"We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract - involving payment of jizya; if they refuse they will have nothing but the sword," the Isis statement said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455
Oh that's right, Whitedog will claim the jihadists are innocent and peace loving and it's all the fault of colonialism.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire.
where did you read that? For me, all it meant is that they are allowed to leave their troops in Gaza but nothing else.
On August 02 2014 00:45 tomatriedes wrote:Where's the international outrage about this? Show nested quote +Iraqi Christians are fleeing Mosul after Islamist militants threatened to kill them unless they converted to Islam or paid a "protection tax".
A statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) was read out at the city's mosques.
It called on Christians to comply by midday on Saturday or face death if they did not leave the northern city.
Isis has control of large parts of Syria and Iraq and said last month it was creating an Islamic caliphate.
The ultimatum cited a historic contract known as "dhimma," under which non-Muslims in Islamic societies who refuse to convert are offered protection if they pay a fee, called a "jizya".
"We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract - involving payment of jizya; if they refuse they will have nothing but the sword," the Isis statement said. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455Oh that's right, Whitedog will claim the jihadists are innocent and peace loving and it's all the fault of colonialism.
please take this to the appropriate thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/203676-iraq-and-syrian-civil-wars
|
France266 Posts
On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: Show nested quote +An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. Show nested quote +This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html
Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal)
|
On August 02 2014 00:47 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire. where did you read that? For me, all it meant is that they are allowed to leave their troops in Gaza but nothing else. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:45 tomatriedes wrote:Where's the international outrage about this? Iraqi Christians are fleeing Mosul after Islamist militants threatened to kill them unless they converted to Islam or paid a "protection tax".
A statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) was read out at the city's mosques.
It called on Christians to comply by midday on Saturday or face death if they did not leave the northern city.
Isis has control of large parts of Syria and Iraq and said last month it was creating an Islamic caliphate.
The ultimatum cited a historic contract known as "dhimma," under which non-Muslims in Islamic societies who refuse to convert are offered protection if they pay a fee, called a "jizya".
"We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract - involving payment of jizya; if they refuse they will have nothing but the sword," the Isis statement said. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455Oh that's right, Whitedog will claim the jihadists are innocent and peace loving and it's all the fault of colonialism. please take this to the appropriate thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/203676-iraq-and-syrian-civil-wars
http://online.wsj.com/articles/gaza-takes-a-breather-as-cease-fire-comes-into-effect-1406877901
Speaking from New Delhi, Kerry said neither side will advance militarily from their current positions, but that Israel will continue to destroy tunnels Hamas has used to smuggle weapons and fighters into Israel.
On August 02 2014 00:43 Broetchenholer wrote:Israel and the States are already speaking of an abduction of the soldier. In a statement later Friday the IDF said, "at approximately 09:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. Eastern), an attack was executed against IDF forces operating to decommission a tunnel. Initial indication suggests that an IDF soldier has been abducted by terrorists during the incident." So, how do they already know Hamas won't give him access to the Red Cross or phone calls to his family? Calling the deeds of your opponent abductions and yours self-defense is propaganda and has nothing to do with how he is treated. You can call out Hamas for mistreating their prisoners of wars, but surely not for abductions. But again, that is nitpicking
Again, read my original post. I simply stated that it is absolutely false to claim that a soldier cannot be considered "kidnapped", as was the case by Shalit.
As for this kidnapping- i imagine Israel is drawing the expected and logical conclusion, that there's no reason Hamas will treat him any differently than Shalit. But either way, my point was that a soldier, can, in fact, be considered "kidnapped"
|
On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire.
Lolwut? You think Israel, US, Russia, or any other military power follows those conventions when it doesn't suit their interests? Do you think Israel, with its great reverence for human rights and international law, wouldn't have ambushed a red cross mission to get back one of their own free of charge? Israel operates under the (correct) assumption that they are not bound by international law.
|
On August 02 2014 00:52 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal)
there is nothing wrong with criticizing Al Jazeera but, could you point out the false information in that article?, since you are french and all. you have happenings there, as related by Ali Saad (a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society).
you could even disagree with his conclusion but you'll still remain with the facts.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 02 2014 01:03 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:47 BigFan wrote:On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire. where did you read that? For me, all it meant is that they are allowed to leave their troops in Gaza but nothing else. On August 02 2014 00:45 tomatriedes wrote:Where's the international outrage about this? Iraqi Christians are fleeing Mosul after Islamist militants threatened to kill them unless they converted to Islam or paid a "protection tax".
A statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) was read out at the city's mosques.
It called on Christians to comply by midday on Saturday or face death if they did not leave the northern city.
Isis has control of large parts of Syria and Iraq and said last month it was creating an Islamic caliphate.
The ultimatum cited a historic contract known as "dhimma," under which non-Muslims in Islamic societies who refuse to convert are offered protection if they pay a fee, called a "jizya".
"We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract - involving payment of jizya; if they refuse they will have nothing but the sword," the Isis statement said. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455Oh that's right, Whitedog will claim the jihadists are innocent and peace loving and it's all the fault of colonialism. please take this to the appropriate thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/203676-iraq-and-syrian-civil-wars http://online.wsj.com/articles/gaza-takes-a-breather-as-cease-fire-comes-into-effect-1406877901Show nested quote +Speaking from New Delhi, Kerry said neither side will advance militarily from their current positions, but that Israel will continue to destroy tunnels Hamas has used to smuggle weapons and fighters into Israel. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:43 Broetchenholer wrote:Israel and the States are already speaking of an abduction of the soldier. In a statement later Friday the IDF said, "at approximately 09:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. Eastern), an attack was executed against IDF forces operating to decommission a tunnel. Initial indication suggests that an IDF soldier has been abducted by terrorists during the incident." So, how do they already know Hamas won't give him access to the Red Cross or phone calls to his family? Calling the deeds of your opponent abductions and yours self-defense is propaganda and has nothing to do with how he is treated. You can call out Hamas for mistreating their prisoners of wars, but surely not for abductions. But again, that is nitpicking Again, read my original post. I simply stated that it is absolutely false to claim that a soldier cannot be considered "kidnapped", as was the case by Shalit. As for this kidnapping- i imagine Israel is drawing the expected and logical conclusion, that there's no reason Hamas will treat him any differently than Shalit. But either way, my point was that a soldier, can, in fact, be considered "kidnapped"
so in other words, they can't move further in (why would they want to if you think about it) but can still pound areas that they suspect have tunnels. That's not much of a ceasefire >.>
Kidnapped or abducted, doesn't matter in this case since the outcome is the same^
|
On August 02 2014 01:19 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire. Lolwut? You think Israel, US, Russia, or any other military power follows those conventions when it doesn't suit their interests? Do you think Israel, with its great reverence for human rights and international law, wouldn't have ambushed a red cross mission to get back one of their own free of charge? Israel operates under the (correct) assumption that they are not bound by international law.
Did you read this conversation at all? redviper said a soldier cannot be considered "kidnapped". I said that they can, and gave sources saying such. What part of that do you disagree with? What does accusing Israel, the U.S., and Russia of not following conventions have to do with anything?
On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:03 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 00:47 BigFan wrote:On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire. where did you read that? For me, all it meant is that they are allowed to leave their troops in Gaza but nothing else. On August 02 2014 00:45 tomatriedes wrote:Where's the international outrage about this? Iraqi Christians are fleeing Mosul after Islamist militants threatened to kill them unless they converted to Islam or paid a "protection tax".
A statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) was read out at the city's mosques.
It called on Christians to comply by midday on Saturday or face death if they did not leave the northern city.
Isis has control of large parts of Syria and Iraq and said last month it was creating an Islamic caliphate.
The ultimatum cited a historic contract known as "dhimma," under which non-Muslims in Islamic societies who refuse to convert are offered protection if they pay a fee, called a "jizya".
"We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract - involving payment of jizya; if they refuse they will have nothing but the sword," the Isis statement said. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455Oh that's right, Whitedog will claim the jihadists are innocent and peace loving and it's all the fault of colonialism. please take this to the appropriate thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/203676-iraq-and-syrian-civil-wars http://online.wsj.com/articles/gaza-takes-a-breather-as-cease-fire-comes-into-effect-1406877901Speaking from New Delhi, Kerry said neither side will advance militarily from their current positions, but that Israel will continue to destroy tunnels Hamas has used to smuggle weapons and fighters into Israel. On August 02 2014 00:43 Broetchenholer wrote:Israel and the States are already speaking of an abduction of the soldier. In a statement later Friday the IDF said, "at approximately 09:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. Eastern), an attack was executed against IDF forces operating to decommission a tunnel. Initial indication suggests that an IDF soldier has been abducted by terrorists during the incident." So, how do they already know Hamas won't give him access to the Red Cross or phone calls to his family? Calling the deeds of your opponent abductions and yours self-defense is propaganda and has nothing to do with how he is treated. You can call out Hamas for mistreating their prisoners of wars, but surely not for abductions. But again, that is nitpicking Again, read my original post. I simply stated that it is absolutely false to claim that a soldier cannot be considered "kidnapped", as was the case by Shalit. As for this kidnapping- i imagine Israel is drawing the expected and logical conclusion, that there's no reason Hamas will treat him any differently than Shalit. But either way, my point was that a soldier, can, in fact, be considered "kidnapped" so in other words, they can't move further in (why would they want to if you think about it) but can still pound areas that they suspect have tunnels. That's not much of a ceasefire >.> Kidnapped or abducted, doesn't matter in this case since the outcome is the same^
We can have a discussion about the legitimacy of the cease fire, but what is more important is that, whatever it was, Hamas broke it after having agreed to it. Do we agree to that point? If yes, then we'll discuss the fairness of it.
Also, there is a difference between kidnapped and captured- will Hamas follow the Geneva Conventions, and let the soldiers have visits from families, and from the Red Cross? I guess that remains to be seen, but history points to Hamas not following them.
|
On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:19 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 00:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 00:04 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 01 2014 23:50 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 01 2014 22:31 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
So the Hamas kidnapped a soldier during the ceasefire and Isreal now declares the ceasefire for over to search for the soldier in Gaza. Great stuff... The cease fire was also kinda imbalanced, since the Israeli kept 40 % of gaza and kept destroying tunnels. It's a "we keep doing our stuff you don't" cease fire type. You can say whatever you want about the cease fire before you agree to it, but in no way can you justify breaking a cease fire AFTER you agree to it by saying it was unfair in the first place. Is that what you're trying to do? On August 01 2014 22:32 redviper wrote:
Soldier is not kidnapped, soldiers are captured. Hamas captured a soldier stupid move to end the truce but not surprising given that Israel didn't really leave Gaza. That first sentence is completely false. See, for example, the case of Gilad Shalit, where he was widely reported as kidnapped because he was denied the rights given to "captured" soldiers. And of course it's not difficult to assume Hamas will do the same this time around. In any event, no, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you can't be kidnapped. Could you please give a source why denying a prisoner of war his rights means you have to use the term kidnapped? And what rights were violated? This is nitpicking at best and showing most likely double standards throgh tying to villify the action of one side of the conflict. It is pretty probable that the Hamas will violate the rights of this poor guy, i don't want to be in his shoes, but besides breaking the truce, there is really nothing special about a soldier getting captured while invading the "enemy" territory. I was responding to redviper, who said he could not be considered kidnapped, because he is a solider. That is not true. Many sources reported Shalit as kidnapped (or "abducted") because he was denied rights. Here's a few: http://www.france24.com/en/20120309-gilad-schalit-abductor-killed-israeli-air-strike-gaza-city-militants-palestinian-qaissi/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13628212And the Red Cross was not given access to him, and he was denied the right to communicate with family, both of which are given by the Geneva Convention. That's what makes it different than a captured soldier On August 02 2014 00:16 BigFan wrote:This was on the live blog on Al-Jazeera's website: Peter Lerner, spokesman for the Israeli Army, speaking from Tel Aviv confirmed to Al Jazeera, that the Israeli military was conducting an operation to destroy the tunnels in Gaza during the truce, when they came under attack by Hamas armed fighters.
Hamas said the operation was a violation of the truce. For me, reading up on the ceasefire, both sides were supposed to halt their operation but based on that, seems like one side decided not to and there was a response to it. Part of the terms of the cease fire was that Israel was allowed to continue destroying the tunnels. Hamas broke the cease fire. Lolwut? You think Israel, US, Russia, or any other military power follows those conventions when it doesn't suit their interests? Do you think Israel, with its great reverence for human rights and international law, wouldn't have ambushed a red cross mission to get back one of their own free of charge? Israel operates under the (correct) assumption that they are not bound by international law. Did you read this conversation at all? redviper said a soldier cannot be considered "kidnapped". I said that they can, and gave sources saying such. What part of that do you disagree with? What does accusing Israel, the U.S., and Russia of not following conventions have to do with anything?
Because calling it a kidnapping rather than a capture based failure to adhere to rules that the captured party doesn't even follow is ridiculous. It's a propaganda tactic to detract from a legitimate action by claiming that the opposing side is bad for not following a ruleset that would get them killed. Meanwhile, the accusing party (Israel) doesn't typically follow this ruleset despite having the ability to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
