|
On August 02 2014 02:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Or the disgusting implication of tsgtnoobkilla that palestinian civilians are not worth protecting from isreali rockets?
Yep, cause that's exactly what I implied by posting that news snippet...
Or maybe you don't know what the Iron Dome system was developed for, in which case it's understandable why you don't understand how ridiculous the UN's statement is.
Or the UN's disgusting implication that Israel is not allowed to defend itself from Hamas. Only Hamas is allowed to attack Israel without condemnation of course? 
UNHCR: Let's balance this "game" by demanding that the Israelis hand over their defensive assets to protect Hamas from its own rockets!
|
Out of curiosity, is there such a thing as an official Palestinian standing army following international rules? Or is the paramilitary Quassam-Terrorists all they got? Because if so, who would operate a Gaza Iron Dome? Who would you even give the weapons to, if there is noone on the other side?
|
Are we seriously entertaining/debating the idea of a Palestinian Iron Dome? -_-
|
Okay, so if the Israeli soldier was kidnapped, what do we call all the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip? Hostages? Prisoners? Second-class citizens? Refugees?
|
I'm trying, I'm really trying over here. But to redefine words to suit your own rhetoric is just beyond parody. You have given no sources refering to such bizarre redefining of a word. Some media use capture, some use kidnapping. Neither supports your bizarre redifining of words, nor your strange insistence that Hamas provide him with personal visits to family members.
But yeah, all Palestinian civilians are Hamas, and all Hamas are terrorists. Thanks for telling us your view.
|
On August 02 2014 02:38 aksfjh wrote:
Are we seriously entertaining/debating the idea of a Palestinian Iron Dome? -_-
That sounds pretty dumb. Why doesn't everyone stop firing rockets and then no one needs an iron dome. Problem solved.
|
On August 02 2014 02:26 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:16 Jormundr 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. 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? Show nested quote +
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".
I am saying (and I don't think you were actually dumb enough to miss that) that Israel is accusing Hamas of not being easier targets. Through very aggressive propaganda Israel creates a catch 22 situation for pretty much any action Hamas is capable of which helps Gaza. See your own statement on Hamas being INDISCRIMINATE in their targeting of civilians. This is one of the main ideas the IDF PR department is parroting through social media.
Hamas is bad because they don't discriminate
Israel is good because they claim to discriminate before they kill them anyway
It's largely an argument of "If you weren't so horrible we wouldn't be horrible" while forcing your opponent to be horrible by taking all other options away from them.
|
On August 02 2014 02:38 aksfjh wrote:
Are we seriously entertaining/debating the idea of a Palestinian Iron Dome? -_-
No, we're not. Take anything from Breitbart with a grain of salt - they have a history of making things up.
In this case they're not making anything up, they're just taking a specific quote out of context and writing an Onion article around it.
|
a lot of people are using Isreal instead of Israel and Irealis instead of Israelis. what's up with that?
|
On August 02 2014 02:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm trying, I'm really trying over here. But to redefine words to suit your own rhetoric is just beyond parody. You have given no sources refering to such bizarre redefining of a word. Some media use capture, some use kidnapping. Neither supports your bizarre redifining of words, nor your strange insistence that Hamas provide him with personal visits to family members.
But yeah, all Palestinian civilians are Hamas, and all Hamas are terrorists. Thanks for telling us your view.
Ya, you know what, maybe I should stop trying. Apparently the legal definition of the word "kidnapping" isn't good enough for you. My mistake for assuming we were talking about the legal definition, and not just whatever definition we liked at the moment.
On August 02 2014 02:42 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:26 soon.Cloak wrote: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: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. 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". I am saying (and I don't think you were actually dumb enough to miss that) that Israel is accusing Hamas of not being easier targets. Through very aggressive propaganda Israel creates a catch 22 situation for pretty much any action Hamas is capable of which helps Gaza. See your own statement on Hamas being INDISCRIMINATE in their targeting of civilians. This is one of the main ideas the IDF PR department is parroting through social media. Hamas is bad because they don't discriminateIsrael is good because they claim to discriminate before they kill them anyway It's largely an argument of "If you weren't so horrible we wouldn't be horrible" while forcing your opponent to be horrible by taking all other options away from them.
And how, pray tell, is Israel accusing Hamas of "not being easier targets"? What does shooting rockets indiscriminately into civilian territory have to do with making them easier or harder targets?
Furthermore, according to your logic (by equating Hamas and Israel's rocket fire), if Israel would indiscriminately fire rockets into Gaza (like Hamas is doing), they wouldn't be doing anything worse than they are now. Does that actually make any sense to you?
|
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.
haha!
|
On August 02 2014 02:47 xM(Z wrote:
a lot of people are using Isreal instead of Israel and Irealis instead of Israelis. what's up with that?
They wish to confirm that that Hamas has recognised the state of IsReal, as opposed to an invisible enemy that cannot be seen or touched or declared war upon for the purposes of their own propaganda like "terrorism", since some people a few pages back were really insistent that Hamas doesn't recognise that Israel exists.
Also lol at "anti semantic"
|
On August 02 2014 02:52 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm trying, I'm really trying over here. But to redefine words to suit your own rhetoric is just beyond parody. You have given no sources refering to such bizarre redefining of a word. Some media use capture, some use kidnapping. Neither supports your bizarre redifining of words, nor your strange insistence that Hamas provide him with personal visits to family members.
But yeah, all Palestinian civilians are Hamas, and all Hamas are terrorists. Thanks for telling us your view. Ya, you know what, maybe I should stop trying. Apparently the legal definition of the word "kidnapping" isn't good enough for you. My mistake for assuming we were talking about the legal definition, and not just whatever definition we liked at the moment. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:42 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 02:26 soon.Cloak wrote: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: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:
[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. 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:
[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. 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. 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". I am saying (and I don't think you were actually dumb enough to miss that) that Israel is accusing Hamas of not being easier targets. Through very aggressive propaganda Israel creates a catch 22 situation for pretty much any action Hamas is capable of which helps Gaza. See your own statement on Hamas being INDISCRIMINATE in their targeting of civilians. This is one of the main ideas the IDF PR department is parroting through social media. Hamas is bad because they don't discriminateIsrael is good because they claim to discriminate before they kill them anyway It's largely an argument of "If you weren't so horrible we wouldn't be horrible" while forcing your opponent to be horrible by taking all other options away from them. And how, pray tell, is Israel accusing Hamas of "not being easier targets"? What does shooting rockets indiscriminately into civilian territory have to do with making them easier or harder targets? Furthermore, according to your logic (by equating Hamas and Israel's rocket fire), if Israel would indiscriminately fire rockets into Gaza (like Hamas is doing), they wouldn't be doing anything worse than they are now. Does that actually make any sense to you?
The first line refers to the specific argument that Hamas should tell Israel where they are holding their prisoners (which is what you are claiming they should do in order to meet the qualifications to capture an enemy soldier). This has nothing to do with your rocket strawman that you started in your last post. The rest of post refers to the first line of the post and your rocket strawman and how they fit in a larger Israeli propaganda strategy and how that propaganda is both counter-factual and hypocritical.
|
its likely the article is already posted since TL is generally quick but holy shit, "The is genocide permissible" article is lunatic. it was even posted on the leading israeli newspaper.
Maybe instead of preaching to the world about the holocaust, they themselves should revisit its lessons and the de-humanization of a subjugated people
the article: http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0
|
Of course it's possible to kidnap a soldier... when he's at home, sleeping in his pajamas with his weapons hanged up in the barracks. When you're walking into enemy territory, fully armed and carrying out an operation, then you can get captured.
|
On August 02 2014 03:02 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 02:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm trying, I'm really trying over here. But to redefine words to suit your own rhetoric is just beyond parody. You have given no sources refering to such bizarre redefining of a word. Some media use capture, some use kidnapping. Neither supports your bizarre redifining of words, nor your strange insistence that Hamas provide him with personal visits to family members.
But yeah, all Palestinian civilians are Hamas, and all Hamas are terrorists. Thanks for telling us your view. Ya, you know what, maybe I should stop trying. Apparently the legal definition of the word "kidnapping" isn't good enough for you. My mistake for assuming we were talking about the legal definition, and not just whatever definition we liked at the moment. On August 02 2014 02:42 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 02:26 soon.Cloak wrote: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: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: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: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:[quote] http://online.wsj.com/articles/gaza-takes-a-breather-as-cease-fire-comes-into-effect-1406877901[quote] [quote] 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". I am saying (and I don't think you were actually dumb enough to miss that) that Israel is accusing Hamas of not being easier targets. Through very aggressive propaganda Israel creates a catch 22 situation for pretty much any action Hamas is capable of which helps Gaza. See your own statement on Hamas being INDISCRIMINATE in their targeting of civilians. This is one of the main ideas the IDF PR department is parroting through social media. Hamas is bad because they don't discriminateIsrael is good because they claim to discriminate before they kill them anyway It's largely an argument of "If you weren't so horrible we wouldn't be horrible" while forcing your opponent to be horrible by taking all other options away from them. And how, pray tell, is Israel accusing Hamas of "not being easier targets"? What does shooting rockets indiscriminately into civilian territory have to do with making them easier or harder targets? Furthermore, according to your logic (by equating Hamas and Israel's rocket fire), if Israel would indiscriminately fire rockets into Gaza (like Hamas is doing), they wouldn't be doing anything worse than they are now. Does that actually make any sense to you? The first line refers to the specific argument that Hamas should tell Israel where they are holding their prisoners (which is what you are claiming they should do in order to meet the qualifications to capture an enemy soldier). This has nothing to do with your rocket strawman that you started in your last post. The rest of post refers to the first line of the post and your rocket strawman and how they fit in a larger Israeli propaganda strategy and how that propaganda is both counter-factual and hypocritical.
I spent about a minute trying to figure out what you're saying here, but I'm lost...I mean,
The rest of post refers to the first line of the post
sounds like a poem.
|
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 quotes are taken out-of-context. For proper context, see here and here
You also don't seem to realize, given the part you bolded, that Israel is an occupying power in Gaza. As such, it is legally bound to protect its population. Don't call other people "bloody morons" when you have an incomplete understanding of the situation.
|
On August 02 2014 03:09 sekritzzz wrote:its likely the article is already posted since TL is generally quick but holy shit, "The is genocide permissible" article is lunatic. it was even posted on the leading israeli newspaper. Maybe instead of preaching to the world about the holocaust, they themselves should revisit its lessons and the de-humanization of a subjugated people the article: http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0
The guy who wrote that article is actually a lunatic, and many in the Jewish and pro-Israel community have come forward and condemned that kind of thought, but it's still scary to see how many people agree with him.
Usually when you see that kind of crazy-talk it's in the form of Muslim extremists talking about the destruction of Israel. The media sure does shove a lot of that down our throats. But crazies exist on both sides.
|
On August 02 2014 03:13 kwizach 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 quotes are taken out-of-context. For proper context, see here and hereYou also don't seem to realize, given the part you bolded, that Israel is an occupying power in Gaza. As such, it is legally bound to protect its population. Don't call other people "bloody morons" when you have an incomplete understanding of the situation.
It's a pretty simple concept:
Israel is an occupying force and therefore is bound under international law to care for the people under their control and protect them. Not all Palestinians are Hamas, contrary to American/Israeli propaganda. In fact, only 42.9% voted for them in 2006 and the support for Hamas has declined since then. So Israel has an obligation to protect the Palestinians from harm. The Iron dome, as an anti missile system that protects people should be shared with the Gazans.
This is what they're saying.
|
On August 02 2014 03:16 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:09 sekritzzz wrote:its likely the article is already posted since TL is generally quick but holy shit, "The is genocide permissible" article is lunatic. it was even posted on the leading israeli newspaper. Maybe instead of preaching to the world about the holocaust, they themselves should revisit its lessons and the de-humanization of a subjugated people the article: http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0 The guy who wrote that article is actually a lunatic, and many in the Jewish and pro-Israel community have come forward and condemned that kind of thought, but it's still scary to see how many people agree with him. Usually when you see that kind of crazy-talk it's in the form of Muslim extremists talking about the destruction of Israel. The media sure does shove a lot of that down our throats. But crazies exist on both sides.
There is a huge, huge difference between wanting the destruction of the isreali state and mass genocide of the jewish people. For example iran actively hosts a jewish population but they still call for the dismantling of Israel. Calling for genocide means killing every single child, woman or man you see from that race.
I dont want to believe it but the policy of Israels army seems to be heading that way. bombing UN refugee shelters for children or leveling entire neighborhoods is disturbing to say the least. Even Obama is getting frustrated
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
