Israel's military targeting policies

sovtek

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

SpAcEd OuT, just out of interest, are you an american? Ive never come across anyone who is Irish and an American neo-con.

I think he/she is one of those people I heard about ages ago. They are paid to go to message boards and rile people up about Israel and America. Something like that. Don't know if its true though and I can't seem to find anything about it on the interweb at the moment.

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

As stated America gave Iraq those weapons with the intention of them being used on Iranian military they did not know Sadaam was going to use them on his own people years after they gave them to him.

Then why did they keep on giving them?

I obviously don't have an exact figure but nearly every credible historian believes the figure to be in the millions.

That must be the historians that missed the transcripts of meetings where the president and defense department stated reasons for using the bomb. They were not humanitarian. IIRC intentional killing of civilians was a war crime then as it is now. Doesn't matter what your enemy has done or possibly will do.

Sometimes in order to good you may have to engage in evil.

Crap it's a war crime and indefensible.

Oh yes because its not like America are the biggest donaters to charity [and per capita as well if you were to include the amount they give to NGOs,governments etc.]

Nope and half of the "charity" is in the form of military aid (half of which goes to israel to pay for helicopters so they can kill babies).

SpAcEd OuT

Then why did they keep on giving them?

They didn't.

That must be the historians that missed the transcripts of meetings where the president and defense department stated reasons for using the bomb. They were not humanitarian. IIRC intentional killing of civilians was a war crime then as it is now. Doesn't matter what your enemy has done or possibly will do.

Care to provide evidence of this no offense but I tend to take the opinions of renowned historians over someone on the internet.

Crap it's a war crime and indefensible.

Everyone involved in WW2 committed a war crime. It shouldn't be relevant to today.

Nope and half of the "charity" is in the form of military aid (half of which goes to israel to pay for helicopters so they can kill babies).

Hahaha love that little slant you put on it ''killing babies'' pure propaganda on your part making it out like the Israeli military directly targets babies. Are you honestly resorting to that

America funds Israeli military in order to ensure its survival. Do you believe Israel should be wiped off the map

Tell me who started the Arab Israeli war in 67 because it sure as hell wasn't Israel. Thats right Israel WAS NOT the aggressor.

Every Nation should have a right to defend itself to ensure it's survival without America Israels neighbors would not think twice about wiping it off the map and doing god knows what to it's people.

AngryHippie

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I would call them stable in the sense they are unlikely to use them on civilian populations.

Okay,out loud I'm callin you on this one. Israeli soldiers have for decades, been firing live ammunition on Palestinian (youths throwing rocks and petrol bombs) "terrorist groups" at "clashes", Maiming and killing them. If they are not in uniforms, they are not soldiers, if they are not armed, they are not "terrorists". If they get killed its not a "clash" its murder.
I am not condoning Palestinian behavior either, But If you had opened "The great War for Civilization" by Bob Fisk, Which you said previously that you had, You would be aware of the media sanitization that occurs on US networks and even many british networks as a direct result of Israeli pressure and a fear of being seen as anti-semetic.
Mr. Fisk clearly states the disparity of the news reports of attacks on Israeli settlements, and the reprisals by Israeli forces on civilian targets. To turn around and suggest that Israel is Stable, and unlikely to use US weapons on civilian populations is deluded, inaccurate and downright wrong. This blind support for the US is making me think you have another agenda here ?
Did you watch too many Rambo movies growing up ???
Do you feel let down by Schwarzeneggers gang not saving the day ?????
Or have you just slipped into a state of total denial in the face of how glaringly wrong you are on this one ??
I'm looking forward to some confessions of deluded propaganda fan on Monday.

Till then,
Peace out:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

AngryHippie wrote: »

Okay,out loud I'm callin you on this one. Israeli soldiers have for decades, been firing live ammunition on Palestinian (youths throwing rocks and petrol bombs) "terrorist groups" at "clashes", Maiming and killing them.

You know lobbing petrol bombs at people is liable to result in a bullet coming back the other way against most militaries? Lethal force results in lethal force.

NTM

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know lobbing petrol bombs at people is liable to result in a bullet coming back the other way against most militaries? Lethal force results in lethal force.

NTM

Well thats a bit vague, its all relative, you aren't gonna say the French resistance got what they deserved from the Germans because "lethal force results in lethal force".

Manic Moran

Why not? It was an insurgency. The Resistace tried to kill Germans, and the Germans tried to kill them in return. Seems fair enough.

NTM

AngryHippie

There is a difference but it seems to be lost on the Americans and Israelis
If you occupy somebody else's property, They are liable to throw whatever they can at you, until you fcuk off back where you came from. The same occurred on our own little island if you cast your eyes back. Black and Tans anyone ????
The point is if you aggressively occupy someone else's land, expect rocks and petrol bombs and kitchen sinks and piano's flying at you, until they get organized enough to get rifles and grenades, then you can expect them too. Resolution 242 would have settled the whole thing.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know lobbing petrol bombs at people is liable to result in a bullet coming back the other way against most militaries? Lethal force results in lethal force.

NTM

Is a teenager throwing a rock "lethal force"?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why not? It was an insurgency. The Resistace tried to kill Germans, and the Germans tried to kill them in return. Seems fair enough.

NTM

So dropping a half ton bomb on an apartment to get one man is "fair enough"?

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know lobbing petrol bombs at people is liable to result in a bullet coming back the other way against most militaries? Lethal force results in lethal force.

NTM

But supposedly civilized countries follow treaties that they've signed and use proportionate force. A petrol bomb does not necessitate Apache attack helicopters or F-18's (or F-16's or whatever the hell we sell them these days) dropping bombs on apartments. Israel does this many times over.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure that would work today.

I would view it as a simple case of responsibility. If I knock over a guy's pint glass in the pub and it shatters, I can (a ) walk away, or (b ) pick up the pieces, and buy another one for him. This is before you look at the human side. The current situation indicates that the American presence is not a problem in itself: Even the most vocal opponents of the troop surge such as Murtha have admitted that it seems to be working. The problem is the lack of reconciliation between the Iraqi factions, which needs to be done by Iraqis with American support. As long as the Coalition presence can reduce casualties to Iraqis while the Iraqis sort themselves out, I don't see how it can be morally acceptable to leave.

The problem is with people that don't have a clue or an interest being there with guns. The Iraqis were sorting themselves out before America invaded and the fighting between factions was instigated possibly purposely as well as incidentally by merely being there.
It's not morally acceptable to stay when the vast majority wants you to leave and the people that organized the invasion have their narrow interests to attend to.
If you want to take responsibility you leave first (as the vast majority of Iraqis want) and then you apologize for everyone you killed, compensate and then pay for everything you broke.
That's not whats happening and never will as the people that wanted this invasion to happen did it for their very narrow interests.
You are a tool and a target in the meantime as well as any Iraqi that lends you aid.
I dont give a damn about what some Democrat thousands of miles removed from Iraq thinks is working nor do the majority of Iraqis.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Zulu - read the charter rules on making such posts. -Psi

Apologies to SpacedOut - Zulu

Again apologies to SpacedOut. As for Israel not targeting civilians...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3012891.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3097379.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4884058.stm

...seriously though, this took 1 sec to find on the BBC news website. I haven't bothered to search under "houses being bulldozed"

Sorry though, I should have offered proof before my first post.

bobbyjoe

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Sure civilians have been killed in crossfire, it's collateral damage. But Israel has never ever deliberately targetted non aggressive civilians.

Couldn't let that pass.
Israel has often targeted civilians. Most recently with their disgusting attack on Lebennon.

Other massacres of civilians,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Qana in 1996 and 2006
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060730142423944

Video: warning graphic:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/quana_01_19_03.htm

GuanYin

kaiser sauze wrote: »

@psi - I would like to know what is wrong with saying to someone that they are lying, when they know they are? Specifically, I am asking why was Zulu's comment edited by you.

I could not find something specific in the rule of this forum, but they do run into 10ish pages and I don't have that much time.

Politics Charter wrote:

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive.

Link

8th point under section on civility.

kaiser sauze

psi wrote: »

Link

8th point under section on civility.

Ah, that clears that up. I didn't realise there were that many stickys! I was reading the discussion of the rules.

In any case Zulu and BobbyJoe have proved SO was lying, as I had said, when he said that about Israel.

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why not? It was an insurgency. The Resistace tried to kill Germans, and the Germans tried to kill them in return. Seems fair enough.

NTM

Was it proportional? no. Neither is the petrol bombs/rocks vs rifle/machine gun response.

SpAcEd OuT

Zulu wrote: »

Again apologies to SpacedOut. As for Israel not targeting civilians...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3012891.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3097379.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4884058.stm

...seriously though, this took 1 sec to find on the BBC news website. I haven't bothered to search under "houses being bulldozed"

Sorry though, I should have offered proof before my first post.

Firstly the three links you posted are all about the same incident [in case other posters think they are all separate examples]

secondly

It added that "whilst fully aware of the grave dangers" Mr Hurndall still chose to enter a closed military zone.

"In so doing he endangered not only himself but also the lives of others," the statement said.

Eh maybe thats why he was shot. I know if I didn't want to get shot I wouldn't have in full knowledge entered a closed military zone. You can hardly call that an intentional targeting of civilians as he had entered a closed military zone.

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote: »

Is a teenager throwing a rock "lethal force"?

Probably depends on the size of the rock. If it's about brick sized, then yes, as the impact at the other end could be lethal.

Was it proportional? no. Neither is the petrol bombs/rocks vs rifle/machine gun response.

I'd be hard-pressed to find a military (including Ireland) which does not authorize 5.56mm ball to deal with someone with a petrol bomb. They don't always use them, going with tear gas or rubber bullets in preference, but it's not beyond question.

So dropping a half ton bomb on an apartment to get one man is "fair enough"?

This happened with the French Resistance when?

But supposedly civilized countries follow treaties that they've signed and use proportionate force. A petrol bomb does not necessitate Apache attack helicopters or F-18's (or F-16's or whatever the hell we sell them these days) dropping bombs on apartments. Israel does this many times over.

Boo hiss to Israel. How did we get there from Iran via the French Resistance?

The problem is with people that don't have a clue or an interest being there with guns.

That would only be a problem if the people without a clue or interest and with guns also have no morals. In the terms of the Iraqi situation, I would find it a very difficult assertion that an American soldier would feel happy simply standing by and doing nothing while factions kill each other off whilst taking no effort at all to spare anyone else who might get caught in the middle.

The Iraqis were sorting themselves out before America invaded and the fighting between factions was instigated possibly purposely as well as incidentally by merely being there.

You're kidding, right? They were sorting themselves out?

I dont give a damn about what some Democrat thousands of miles removed from Iraq thinks is working nor do the majority of Iraqis.

That's reasonable enough. But I don't think that the majority of Iraqis care what you or I think either, so I think we're all entitled to speculate.

NTM

SpAcEd OuT

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Couldn't let that pass.
Israel has often targeted civilians. Most recently with their disgusting attack on Lebennon.

Other massacres of civilians,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Qana in 1996 and 2006
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060730142423944

Video: warning graphic:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/quana_01_19_03.htm

Firstly in Lebanon they had warned people in the areas to leave before they bombed dropping leaflets and announcing it on radio and television. Anyone who stayed was willing to put up with the likely risk of being bombed and as such that is not Israel's fault.

Your other example was not intentional but an accident, collateral damage, it happens.

As regards to Sabra and Shatila incident firstly there are so many conflicting reports and a lot of those reports are biased towards one side but from what we can gather the IDF never killed one civilian. They may or may not have known about what was going on inside but we don't know that for certain. You can't hold all of Israel responsible because an army general didn't pass on information and furthermore you can't link Israel to the massacre they may have supported the christian militia but there is no concrete evidence to conclude that top govt. officials [this being key] were aware that the militia were going to do what they did or that they knowingly did nothing when they found out. All of the evidence from that incident are either single case incidents or people's recollections and as anyone knows you can't draw a conclusion from single cases or rely on someone's who were more than likely be biased recollection of what happened

GuanYin

Lads, keep it civil and attack the post, not the poster.

In addition, I take a VERY dim view of people using fog of war tactics and not addressing the points at hand.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

No, you are dealing with perceived truths.

As opposed to you who is dealing with what you conspire to be true.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Absolute bull, and you know it. The way you can callously call civilians "collateral damage" is proof enough of your ambivalence to human rights.

Eh its not actually. There is a massive difference between a govt. intentionally killing civilians and accidently killing civilians while targeting a legitimate target. It's not like the USAF go ''Hey theres a house full of innocent civilians lets blow it up'' which is essentially what you are saying.

No, you cannot comprehend language that is clearly written before you. Really, it's not my problem. I would get help though. That's friendly advice.

More personal abuse.

You tried to peddle these figures as facts. They are merely an opinion, and a very subjective one at that.

You wanted evidence that it is widely accepted by historians that a continued war with Japan would have resulted in millions of deaths that is what I provided in the link. I never said it wasn't an opinion

It is torture by international standards, and they are the only ones I care for. Yours are irrelevant.

LOL dripping water on someones face is a bad thing when the resulting information can lead to the stopping of carbombs, terrorist attacks etc. Maybe it is under the convention but to be honest it's not even as bad as putting someone in solidery confinement something that occurs a lot in this country.

The fact that you cannot comprehend my sarcasm, and the written word (as shown earlier in this post), is quite a problem. You might need to see two different people about these problems. I would really recommend it, some very genuine advice.

Personal abuse again.

As I know others in this thread agree, head in the sand is a perfect description for you.

Says the man who wont even look at a link I posted proving him wrong for a ridiculously stupid reason

The question about being proved wrong is immaterial, because you have yet to prove yourself right.

I have proved myself right many times you however have either decided to ignore it, changed the subject of the topic or used a play on words to weasel your way out of the matter. Everyone can see what your doing and if you want to resort to those pathetic motives thats your problem.

Don't tempt me.

Knock yourself out.

AngryHippie

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Eh its not actually. There is a massive difference between a govt. intentionally killing civilians and accidently killing civilians while targeting a legitimate target.

There is no difference, Oops, they didn't mean it, does that bring someones family back, NO
The victims are the ones who define the difference, not the fcukers who killed them indiscriminately

You wanted evidence that it is widely accepted by historians that a continued war with Japan would have resulted in millions of deaths that is what I provided in the link. I never said it wasn't an opinion

Ha ha, You'd better not contradict yourself in the same sentence if you want to be taken seriously.

LOL dripping water on someones face is a bad thing when the resulting information can lead to the stopping of carbombs, terrorist attacks etc. Maybe it is under the convention but to be honest it's not even as bad as putting someone in solidery confinement something that occurs a lot in this country.

It doesnt stop at dripping water, the US administration has admitted the use of other torture methods. Regardless of how effective they are, they are against the Geneva convention. Either you are at war, or you are abusing civil rights, there is not some happy medium that makes it okay because you track down some nutter. aside from the fact that prisoners who have been detained for months without contact from their cells will not have the most relevant intelligence. This applies to the US tactics in both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Its sick and I fully support any "terrorist" who attacks military assets employing such methods.

I have proved myself right many times you however have either decided to ignore it, changed the subject of the topic or used a play on words to weasel your way out of the matter. Everyone can see what your doing and if you want to resort to those pathetic motives thats your problem.

You have proved nothing beyond the effectiveness of a well placed disinformation bureau

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Firstly in Lebanon they had warned people in the areas to leave before they bombed dropping leaflets and announcing it on radio and television. Anyone who stayed was willing to put up with the likely risk of being bombed and as such that is not Israel's fault.

So by that logic, if China leaflets the whole of Taiwan next year, they can literally do whatever they want.

Your other example was not intentional but an accident, collateral damage, it happens.

You wouldn't be saying that if it was any of your family killed.

Any of the prominent Neocon figures in the States ever even served in the military, let alone seen combat?

If Iran suddenly decide to give up all and any nuclear ambitions tomorrow, gauranteed 2 weeks later the Neocons will be pushing Syria, and so on and so on, they don't see the world in terms of human beings they see it in terms of "bad evul" countries with flags on them, a bit like Hitler was at the end of the war.

Five years of utter failure does not seem to deter these nuts.

Padraig Mor

Wow - does this guy live on the same planet as the rest of us?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Sure civilians have been killed in crossfire, it's collateral damage. But Israel has never ever deliberately targetted non aggressive civilians.

What a crock of ****. Israel has decades of experience of deliberately murdering innocent civilians - including many who were not involved in rock-throwing etc. Two cases off the top of my head: (1). about 10 children killed when Israel bombed an apartment block to kill one man - no warning given. IIRC Israeli spokespeople bascially said "tough ****". (2). A young schoolgirl (about 10 IIRC) shot by Israeli soldiers in a demilitarized zone even though they had identified her as not being a threat. They then walked over and finished her off by shooting her in the head. They were acquitted in the last few weeks.

Wait a minute, so they put a towel on your head and drip water.

Nope. Waterboarding involves wrapping someone's head in clingfilm so they can't breathe, turning them head downwards and pouring large amounts of water over their face. Inability to breathe + water = simulated drowning. (The more suspicious of might suggest that this is only a cover story for actual dunkings in water but that's a different matter.)

Zulu

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Firstly the three links you posted are all about the same incident [in case other posters think they are all separate examples]

I only needed one incident of the IDF targeting and killing a civilian in order to prove the point. Were I to keep looking, I'd still be there doing that.

It added that "whilst fully aware of the grave dangers" Mr Hurndall still chose to enter a closed military zone.

"In so doing he endangered not only himself but also the lives of others," the statement said.

It was a civilian control situation. The solder targeted and murdered a journalist. That you choose to dismiss another persons life so lightly is very sad.

Eh maybe thats why he was shot. I know if I didn't want to get shot I wouldn't have in full knowledge entered a closed military zone. You can hardly call that an intentional targeting of civilians as he had entered a closed military zone.

Because the IDF declare a place a "military zone" doesn't make everyone within that zone the enemy. Or are you suggesting that declaring a civilian area a "military zone" makes it ok to kill all and sundry within that area? ...because if you are, then surly no one is ever responsible for killing civilians in a war zone!?!

wes

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

You can't hold all of Israel responsible because an army general didn't pass on information

The butcher of Sabra and Chatila Ariel Sharon, eventually became Israel's Prime Minister. He would have been charged for War crimes before this happened if the US didn't intervene to prevent the EU from arresting him when he went to Europe.

There are also a bucket load of other attacks on civilians by Israel. I suggest you look at Amnesty internationals and Human Rights watch websites. Plenty of examples from these organizations, who I might add also list plenty of abuses by Arab nations in case you think there picking on Israel.

Moriarty

These are all posts split out of the 'US overstated Iran nuclear threat' thread. Please keep all further discussion of Israel to this thread.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote: »

sovtek wrote: »

Is a teenager throwing a rock "lethal force"?

Probably depends on the size of the rock. If it's about brick sized, then yes, as the impact at the other end could be lethal.

Not if its thrown at a tank. Give me a break. Children throwing rocks at APCs does not warrant a live ammo response. The IDF routinely attacks even pacifist demonstrations

And seeing as we're talking 'proportional response' What is a proportional response from the palestinians whenever an innocent palestinian child is murdered by the IDF?

purple'n'gold

The plain simple fact of the matter is Israel and its defence forces can do whatever they like. They can murder Palestinian civilians with impunity and ignore United Nations resolutions. The USA will always back them no matter what they do and veto any resolutions against them regardless of the odious crimes they commit. The only weapon that ordinary people have is to boycott their goods and never to travel or spend money there. And, of course they should not be allowed to compete in European sporting or cultural competitions. Since when is the Middle East part of Europe? Not that it will really hurt them, because the USA will just give them what ever they want in material or money any way. But at the very least they should be told by EU that their bullying is unacceptable.

AngryHippie

Sorry. way out of line. My bad

A Dub in Glasgo

Israel's military targeting policies

They have military targeting policies?

Appears to me they think every woman and child in Palestine is a military target

cabinteelytom

'Israel doesn't target civilians!' What a whopper!
Israeli policies (especially 'security' policies) in the West Bank and Gaza are an economic war targeted at Palestinian civilians with the aim of impoverishing and displacing them.

moe_sizlak

purplengold wrote: »

The plain simple fact of the matter is Israel and its defence forces can do whatever they like. They can murder Palestinian civilians with impunity and ignore United Nations resolutions. The USA will always back them no matter what they do and veto any resolutions against them regardless of the odious crimes they commit. The only weapon that ordinary people have is to boycott their goods and never to travel or spend money there. And, of course they should not be allowed to compete in European sporting or cultural competitions. Since when is the Middle East part of Europe? Not that it will really hurt them, because the USA will just give them what ever they want in material or money any way. But at the very least they should be told by EU that their bullying is unacceptable.

let me ask you , why in your opinion is the usa so unconditionally supportive of israel , i know the jewish vote is crucial in america but there are only 5 million jews in the usa , there are way more irish americans , is jewish american that much more important than irish america