|
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? Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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.
yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights
|
On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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.
You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's.
Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so.
On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights
Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
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? Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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.
nope, I don't agree with that but also don't plan on arguing about it either lol.
|
On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim.
because you are trying to argue semantics, and i'm anti semantic.
|
This is just silly. It's a soldier. He is captured not kidnapped. You have changed definition of "kidnapped" to being whether "following the rules of POW's" are followed or not. Heck, we don't even know if the soldier is treated with a reasonable level of humane treatment, though there probably isn't a safe spot for any civilian in the gaza strip right now.
How exactly do you propose Hamas to even allow the red cross access? They can't even guarantee the safe movements of their own soldiers. How do you expect Hamas to allow phone calls. Gaza doesn't even have a source of electricity anymore, not to mention that Isreal is probably blocking every phone call Hamas can make. How do you expect Hamas to allow personal family visits? This is absurd.
But you are really hung up over the Geneva Conventions. Shall we talk about Isreali violations of the Geneva Conventions, not during war, but during peace?
Anyhow, calling this a kidnapping is so ridiculously absurd, it's just certain media choosing to use the most emotive word possible. If it was a palestine captured without rights, soon.cloak will surely be calling it the most neutral word possible like merely detainment
|
On August 02 2014 01:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
This is just silly. It's a soldier. He is captured not kidnapped. You have changed definition of "kidnapped" to being whether "following the rules of POW's" are followed or not.
How exactly do you propose Hamas to even allow the red cross access? They can't even guarantee the safe movements of their own soldiers. How do you expect Hamas to allow phone calls. Gaza doesn't even have a source of electricity anymore, not to mention that Isreal is probably blocking every phone call Hamas can make. How do you expect Hamas to allow personal family visits? This is absurd.
But you are really hung up over the Geneva Conventions. Shall we talk about Isreali violations of the Geneva Conventions, not during war, but during peace?
well the israelis blowing up a red cross mission to a captured IDF story would be a nice bit of irony, wouldn't it?
|
On August 02 2014 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim. because you are trying to argue semantics, and i'm anti semantic.
then just stay out of semantic discussions if you don't care for it to begin with. Others do.
|
On August 02 2014 01:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim. because you are trying to argue semantics, and i'm anti semantic. then just stay out of semantic discussions if you don't care for it to begin with. Others do.
you missed my joke, didn't you?
|
On August 02 2014 01:52 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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. nope, I don't agree with that but also don't plan on arguing about it either lol.
Er...well, I guess there's not much for me to say if you're not willing to tell me why you disagree.
In any event, from what I've seen, the U.N. has not put the blame on anyone yet, but the U.S. is completely behind Israel.
On August 02 2014 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim. because you are trying to argue semantics, and i'm anti semantic.
Go back a page and tell me who was the first person to start arguing semantics. Furthermore, you still haven't told me why telling me that Israel does stuff has anything to do with whether or not this is considered a kidnapping.
On August 02 2014 01:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
This is just silly. It's a soldier. He is captured not kidnapped. You have changed definition of "kidnapped" to being whether "following the rules of POW's" are followed or not.
This opinion contradicts the opinion of numerous news sources. Feel free to disagree with them, if you change the definition of kidnapping, but multiple sources have called Shalit's situation a "kidnapping" or "abduction".
|
On August 02 2014 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:55 Big J wrote:On August 02 2014 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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:On August 02 2014 01:03 soon.Cloak wrote: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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim. because you are trying to argue semantics, and i'm anti semantic. then just stay out of semantic discussions if you don't care for it to begin with. Others do. you missed my joke, didn't you?
I'll be honest, I wasn't sure myself, lol...
|
U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with HamasThe United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas — and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it’s fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an “emergency” meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its rockets.“There is a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes,” she said, Breitbart reported. The U.N. group listed among its reasons for making that claim that Israel outright refused to share its Iron Dome with the “governing authority” of Gaza — which is Hamas, Breitbart reported. Ms. Pillay also condemned the United States for helping to fund the Iron Dome for Israel, but not granting any such accommodations to those in Gaza. “No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said, Breitbart reported.Source
Hahaha...wait what?
Remind me again about which side is the one that's firing rockets into Israel from Gaza? Based on the UN's logic, Israel should also hand over the keys to Tel Aviv while its at it. Bloody morons...
|
On August 02 2014 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:55 Big J wrote:On August 02 2014 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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:On August 02 2014 01:03 soon.Cloak wrote: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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim. because you are trying to argue semantics, and i'm anti semantic. then just stay out of semantic discussions if you don't care for it to begin with. Others do. you missed my joke, didn't you?
yup. No clue what you want to tell us with that then...
|
On August 02 2014 02:00 sgtnoobkilla wrote:Show nested quote +U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with HamasThe United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas — and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it’s fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an “emergency” meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its rockets.“There is a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes,” she said, Breitbart reported. The U.N. group listed among its reasons for making that claim that Israel outright refused to share its Iron Dome with the “governing authority” of Gaza — which is Hamas, Breitbart reported. Ms. Pillay also condemned the United States for helping to fund the Iron Dome for Israel, but not granting any such accommodations to those in Gaza. “No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said, Breitbart reported.Source Hahaha...wait what? Remind me again about which side is the one that's firing rockets into Israel from Gaza? Based on the UN's logic, Israel should also hand over the keys to Tel Aviv while its at it. Bloody morons...
The UN human rights agency has always been obsessive on isreal. They're pretty much on the same level as fox news for objective credibility.
|
It's not news that the UN is a big joke. It is simply a forum where nations meet. It should never be viewed as an arbiter of right and wrong.
|
On August 02 2014 02:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:00 sgtnoobkilla wrote:U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with HamasThe United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas — and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it’s fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an “emergency” meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its rockets.“There is a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes,” she said, Breitbart reported. The U.N. group listed among its reasons for making that claim that Israel outright refused to share its Iron Dome with the “governing authority” of Gaza — which is Hamas, Breitbart reported. Ms. Pillay also condemned the United States for helping to fund the Iron Dome for Israel, but not granting any such accommodations to those in Gaza. “No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said, Breitbart reported.Source Hahaha...wait what? Remind me again about which side is the one that's firing rockets into Israel from Gaza? Based on the UN's logic, Israel should also hand over the keys to Tel Aviv while its at it. Bloody morons... The UN human rights agency has always been obsessive on isreal. They're pretty much on the same level as fox news for objective credibility.
Still, telling Israel to give Hamas an Iron Dome system sounds like something I would read in of the Onion...I mean, that's far and away one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.
|
As ridiculous as your assertion that kidnapping now means to capture an isreali soldier without personal visits to his family?
Or to be related to the article, that the US seems overly obsessed with protecting Isreali civilian but not to palestinian civilians?
Or the disgusting implication of tsgtnoobkilla that palestinian civilians are not worth protecting from isreali rockets?
|
On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim.
Just because Pro-russian media spouts pro-russian propaganda does not give more weight to a moronic argument. Same for anti-muslim media. When Russia decries Ukraine's treatment of separatists they get called out on their bullshit because of their own treatment of separatists. When Israel decries Hamas's treatment of prisoners they should get called out on their bullshit because of their own treatment of prisoners and the fact that they are the ones who both accuse Hamas of doing wrong and who will assuredly kill Hamas and recapture their personnel if Hamas is stupid enough to play a rigged game.
This falls in line with a large swathe of Israeli propaganda that basically accuses Hamas of not running their soldiers in a single file line towards the enemy. If the accusation is something that Hamas cannot avoid without being killed by Israel then the accusation is bullshit because Israel is responsible for both the action and the accusation.
|
On August 02 2014 02:00 sgtnoobkilla wrote:Show nested quote +U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with HamasThe United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas — and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it’s fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an “emergency” meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its rockets.“There is a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes,” she said, Breitbart reported. The U.N. group listed among its reasons for making that claim that Israel outright refused to share its Iron Dome with the “governing authority” of Gaza — which is Hamas, Breitbart reported. Ms. Pillay also condemned the United States for helping to fund the Iron Dome for Israel, but not granting any such accommodations to those in Gaza. “No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said, Breitbart reported.Source Hahaha...wait what? Remind me again about which side is the one that's firing rockets into Israel from Gaza? Based on the UN's logic, Israel should also hand over the keys to Tel Aviv while its at it. Bloody morons...
Ahahah. As if the hamas have the money and ressources to operate such an expensive system anyway. What the hell are they thinking.
And the idea that the US would be funding the hamas is ludicrous too. Well, everything about that statement is.
|
Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Ethopia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam were among the sponsors of the UN human rights inquiry into Gaza. I doubt many people will take their demands even remotely serious.
|
On August 02 2014 02:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
As ridiculous as your assertion that kidnapping now means to capture an isreali soldier without personal visits to his family?
Or to be related to the article, that the US seems overly obsessed with protecting Isreali civilian but not to palestinian civilians?
Or the disgusting implication of that article that palestinian civilians are not worth protecting from isreali rockets?
I'm trying, I'm really trying over here. I give you sources, you ignore those. I give you logic, you ignore that. Feel free to define kidnapping however you want to. I, and the media, don't particularly care.
And of course the U.S. gives more monetary support to Israel than to Hamas. Israel is what we call "an ally". Hamas are what we call "terrorists". How is America supposed to help the civilians of Gaza, when they know that money given to Hamas will be used for terrorism? Or are we going to ignore the billions of dollars that went into building those tunnels?
Seriously, is it surprising to you that America helps its allies more than it helps others? That seems fairly basic.
On August 02 2014 02:16 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 01:44 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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. You are completely missing what I am saying. Can a solider be considered kidnapped? The answer is yes, as can be seen from the fact that multiple news sources use that term, and "abducted", and not just kidnapped. The reason it's considered a kidnapping and not a capture is because they are not following the rules of POW's. Feel free to think that reason is stupid, or whatever you want to think, but the fact is that that is what multiple news sources reported. If you don't like that, and want to change the definition of "kidnap", have a blast doing so. On August 02 2014 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 soon.Cloak wrote: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? On August 02 2014 01:23 BigFan wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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. yea the israelis are doing a great job respecting human rights Seriously, it's like you're trying to ignore the point I'm making. The only thing I said was that it's considered a kidnapping, because Hamas violated human rights agreements. Do you disagree with that? If yes, explain why. Saying "WELL ISRAEL DOES IT TOO" has nothing to do with my claim. Just because Pro-russian media spouts pro-russian propaganda does not give more weight to a moronic argument. Same for anti-muslim media.
I gave you USAToday, BBC, and france24. I can give you more if you like. But if you're just going to decide that any media that disagrees with you is anti-muslim, is there any point?
This falls in line with a large swathe of Israeli propaganda that basically accuses Hamas of not running their soldiers in a single file line towards the enemy. If the accusation is something that Hamas cannot avoid without being killed by Israel then the accusation is bullshit because Israel is responsible for both the action and the accusation.
Ah yes, all that Israel propaganda that is accusing Hamas of committing war crimes, not because they're indiscriminately shooting rockets at civilians, but because they're not running into soldiers single file. This is known as a "strawman".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
