1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

uprising

I've been following this thread for the past few days and am disgusted by people openly defending this sheer slaughter, what has the world come to?, people can watch such an evil act like this and defend it.
Wrong is WRONG, yet some idiots seem to think wrong is right, the excuses given could be laughable except this is far from a laughing matter.
All I can say is "SHAME ON YOU", you all know who you are.

Armed resistance against armed occupation, nowhere in the world has any "terrorist" organisation ever sprung up just for the sake of it, they have come about by people sick to the teeth of Imperial forces forcing their will upon them, bullying them, murdering them, evicting them. My prayers and thoughts are with the residents of Gaza.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

I’m not questioning his military activity – I’m questioning the morals of a people who purposefully and intentionally put their children in the line of fire, so they can complain to the world about the Israeli “children killers”

This is often cited but never referenced as fact, as far as I've read, in mainstream newspapers. The Israeli spokesmen and people like yourself on boards mention it alot but I've never seen it referenced. Please do so.

Gaza is also extremely densely populated, on a par with Hong Kong, with non-uniform distribution of the population. 50% of the population of the Gaza Strip is 15 or under, only 2.7% is over 65, so if they are fighting in the city they are almost guaranteed to be next to someplace with families and civilians in it. Giving the IDF GPS of designated civilian safe areas and marking them as such doesn't seem to help either.

The fact that you don’t think that what is shown in this picture is wrong and might contribute to the civilian casualty list, speaks volumes.

Like the picture last night with the IDF guy and the boy crouching, it could be of anything. Without a verifiable context and source it's meaningless.

Manic Moran

you can still stay on Israel's side and say "look it was wrong and nothing justifies it" but nobody does.

Problem is that requires facts not in evidence. It would be wrong and nothing would justify it if all the assumptions you have made are correct. Initial reports indicated it was direct tank fire on the school, later reports called it indirect.

However, there may be some other assumptions you can also make. Take, for example, the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm

The UN aid agency in Gaza, Unrwa, said three artillery shells had landed close to the al-Fakhura school on Tuesday afternoon, spraying shrapnel on people both inside and outside the building.

Not on, close to. Still, maybe they were aiming at the school and missed.

It later reported that two well-known members of a Hamas rocket-launching cell had been among those killed at the school, naming them as Imad and Hassan Abu Askar.

"The force responded with mortars at the source of fire,"

Assumptions can thus possibly be made that maybe the Israeli side of the story that they were conducting counter-fire could well be accurate.

Now, for all the talk about GPS co-ordinates and whatnot to be relevant when talking about intent, you have to look at the information available. Modern field artillery systems like AFATADS have the capability of entering in a 'protected' grid, and will not process fire missions into that area. Were the strike conducted with modern howitzers, you might have a point. However, it was done with mortar fire. I've got two mortars in my troop, I've seen the latest mortar equipment the US has to offer, and whilst the stuff is fantastic at getting rounds downrange, it does not have the same capability of entering protected areas.

It is extremely conceivable that the sequence of events went: Hamas mortar fire. Battalion-level counter-battery radar picks up source of origin. Counter-fire immediately takes place without taking the time to go look at a map to see how close the point of origin was to a protected area. You can't take the time to look at a map in that situation, speed is absolutely critical.

Now, am I going to place hand on heart and profess to the world that this is what really happened? No. Of course not. I am not privvy to all the relevant information, though I do have a lot of practical background knowledge. I propose it as a possibility. I accept as a counter-possibility that the Israelis knowingly and callously bombarded a protected NGO refugee site. But you can't put your hand on heart and profess that as fact either.

So no. I'm not going to condemn the act out of hand.

NTM

Manic Moran

Meanwhile, from the whacko third-party department, we have a third option of people to blame for this mess, other than the Israelis and Hamas.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/gaza.alqaeda/index.html

Al Qaeda message blames Obama, Egypt for Gaza violence

NTM

Steviemak

Shame on you, Manic Moran.

youcrazyjesus!

Manic Moran wrote: »

Problem is that requires facts not in evidence. It would be wrong and nothing would justify it if all the assumptions you have made are correct.

The only assumptions I've made are that 40 civilians were killed by Israeli fire while they were sheltering in a UN building, with the UN flag outside and that the UN had provided the IDF with GPS coordinates.

Israel itself has admitted it targetted the area deliberately, it says returning fire against Hamas. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. They targetted the area of the school and hit it, killed civilians. This is a crime, by their own words.

I'm also making one more assumption, that previous investigations, of previous instances in which civilians were massacred, which stated that Israeli deliberately targetted civilians while using the excuse of targetting so called terrorists, are accurate.

Initial reports indicated it was direct tank fire on the school, later reports called it indirect.

It doesn't matter whether it was a tank, a shell, a mortar, a missile, a grenade, a daisycutter or a tactical nuclear weapon, something hit it for Christ's sake.

Mr Ging said the three men who were killed had fled their homes earlier in the day thinking they would be safe in a UN school in Gaza City. In a statement to media he stressed that all UN schools in Gaza are clearly marked, flying the UN flag, and that the Organisation has provided the GPS coordinates of all of its installations in the area to Israel.

In a separate attack earlier in the day, three Palestinians were killed in an airstrike on another school run by UNRWA. - a 2nd attack

However, there may be some other assumptions you can also make. Take, for example, the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm

Sorry which assumption?

Not on, close to. Still, maybe they were aiming at the school and missed.

Who did they miss? The 40 dead civilians? The countless others injured?

Assumptions can thus possibly be made that maybe the Israeli side of the story that they were conducting counter-fire could well be accurate.

Whether they were or weren't is irrelevant but even so, if previous form is an indictor of future behaviour then we should be extremely cynical when analysing Israel's justification.

Now, for all the talk about GPS co-ordinates and whatnot to be relevant when talking about intent, you have to look at the information available. Modern field artillery systems like AFATADS have the capability of entering in a 'protected' grid, and will not process fire missions into that area. Were the strike conducted with modern howitzers, you might have a point. However, it was done with mortar fire. I've got two mortars in my troop, I've seen the latest mortar equipment the US has to offer, and whilst the stuff is fantastic at getting rounds downrange, it does not have the same capability of entering protected areas.

The method used to do the killing is absolutely irrelevant to everybody apart from the most narrowly focused military mind. It doesn't matter which method was used. You don't get off because you used mortars instead of shells or tanks instead of F-16s. What a bizarre statement to make.

Now, am I going to place hand on heart and profess to the world that this is what really happened? No. Of course not. I am not privvy to all the relevant information, though I do have a lot of practical background knowledge.

They can tell it to the judge. In my opinion you've indicated that the information you deem relevant is in fact absolutely irrelevant to 99.999% of people watching.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Problem is that requires facts not in evidence. It would be wrong and nothing would justify it if all the assumptions you have made are correct. Initial reports indicated it was direct tank fire on the school, later reports called it indirect.

However, there may be some other assumptions you can also make. Take, for example, the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm


Not on, close to. Still, maybe they were aiming at the school and missed.


Assumptions can thus possibly be made that maybe the Israeli side of the story that they were conducting counter-fire could well be accurate.

Now, for all the talk about GPS co-ordinates and whatnot to be relevant when talking about intent, you have to look at the information available. Modern field artillery systems like AFATADS have the capability of entering in a 'protected' grid, and will not process fire missions into that area. Were the strike conducted with modern howitzers, you might have a point. However, it was done with mortar fire. I've got two mortars in my troop, I've seen the latest mortar equipment the US has to offer, and whilst the stuff is fantastic at getting rounds downrange, it does not have the same capability of entering protected areas.

It is extremely conceivable that the sequence of events went: Hamas mortar fire. Battalion-level counter-battery radar picks up source of origin. Counter-fire immediately takes place without taking the time to go look at a map to see how close the point of origin was to a protected area. You can't take the time to look at a map in that situation, speed is absolutely critical.

Now, am I going to place hand on heart and profess to the world that this is what really happened? No. Of course not. I am not privvy to all the relevant information, though I do have a lot of practical background knowledge. I propose it as a possibility. I accept as a counter-possibility that the Israelis knowingly and callously bombarded a protected NGO refugee site. But you can't put your hand on heart and profess that as fact either.

So no. I'm not going to condemn the act out of hand.

NTM

Well I'd take what the Israeli military say with a very large pinch of salt. They said there was Hamas fighters launching rockets or mortars from there. A UN spokesman said that while they weren't certain they didn't think that this was the case around the time of the attack.

After every major incident with mass killings and killing of UN personnelle the Israeli army usually immidiately state that they were being attacked from that position, it was being used as a launching pad, it was a storehouse, etc. When the UN state that they think differently and conduct an investigation they are usually proved to be right and the Israelis tend to stay quiet. This is the same with regard to human rights organizations. By the time the investigation is done it's not news anymore.

This has been the case in:
Bombing of a UN compound in Qana killing 106 in 1996
Killing of a UNRWA worker in a UN compond in Jenin in 2002
Destruction of a UN World Food Programme warehouse
Bombing of a house in Qana killing 54 people in 2006

I'm sure there are more if I could be bothered looking. In all these cases the Israeli's initially stated that they were being attacked from these positions or that there were terrorists there. In each case when an independent investigation was carried out they were proved to be false.

Israel seems to have a default position when things like this happen so I think it would be wise to take what they say with a generous dose of salt. I'll wait for the independent investigation into this but history leads to me lean more towards the UN's version of events.

horseflesh

meditraitor wrote: »

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group

That about describes what Isreal has being doing for the last 40 years to its fellow non jew humans in palestine.

Does it really?
"Genocide" would suggest the killing of millions or at least hundreds of thousands, the Israelis don't have a very good success ratio over the last 60 years then do they?

youcrazyjesus!

horseflesh wrote: »

Does it really?
"Genocide" would suggest the killing of millions or at least hundreds of thousands, the Israelis don't have a very good success ratio over the last 60 years then do they?

I personally don't agree that's it genocide, total political and economic destruction doesn't meet the definition in my view.

Some people might think differently.

nesf

munchester29 wrote: »

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The problem is that that definition could be twisted to say that the killing of a single person is genocide which I'm sure that we'd all agree was a bit silly. I don't think you can really accuse Hamas of genocide, terrorism sure, murder definitely but it's just not on the scale or of the same scope that most of us would associate the term genocide.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Actually, you seem to be the one who doesn't know what it means:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So you see, according to this definition, Hamas is committing genocide against Israel, and against their own people also.

You're quite fond of ludicrous arguments. By that stretch any garden variety murder case could be considered genocide. You
are spectacularly misinterpreting it.

Manic Moran

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The only assumptions I've made are that 40 civilians were killed by Israeli fire while they were sheltering in a UN building, with the UN flag outside and that the UN had provided the IDF with GPS coordinates.

Israel itself has admitted it targetted the area deliberately, it says returning fire against Hamas. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. They targetted the area of the school and hit it, killed civilians. This is a crime, by their own words.

It's not, though. The rule is simple. If you're making a reasonable effort to strike at a military target, then you're covered. It's not as if they conducted a five battery time-on-target on the place, it looks like they fired a half-dozen mortar rounds. This is a reasonably typical (if not a bit light) response for a counter-fire mission. The 'rules' are written with the idea that they will be followed by both sides in mind. You don't try to hit civilians, and you don't try to strike from near civilians. When the latter is not followed, the former becomes very, very difficult to follow. It may be a tragedy, but it is not unlawful.

It doesn't matter whether it was a tank, a shell, a mortar, a missile, a grenade, a daisycutter or a tactical nuclear weapon, something hit it for Christ's sake.

To the victims, I fully agree. As regards the conduct of the war, it is very relevant, especially if you're going to go around claiming violations. For example, if you drop a napalm bomb on someone in a city and kill him and burn a park bench, that's a violation. If you used an FAE, and kill him and obliterate half a city block, it's not a violation. The guy on the receiving end is just as dead but it is important for those of us pontificating on the merits of the situation from behind our keyboards.

. In a statement to media he stressed that all UN schools in Gaza are clearly marked, flying the UN flag, and that the Organisation has provided the GPS coordinates of all of its installations in the area to Israel.

And mortar crews can't see the UN flags, and often don't have time to check GPS co-ordinates. All they get is a computer readout saying "Point of origin this grid"

if previous form is an indictor of future behaviour then we should be extremely cynical when analysing Israel's justification

It works both ways. If Israel was correct, it would not have been the first time that Hamas has fired mortars from the region of UN schools. Actually, last year they fired from right in the middle of the Beit Hanan school grounds.

The method used to do the killing is absolutely irrelevant to everybody apart from the most narrowly focused military mind. It doesn't matter which method was used. You don't get off because you used mortars instead of shells or tanks instead of F-16s. What a bizarre statement to make.

See above. The wonderful well-meaning powers-that-are came up with a set of rules designed to 'civilise' warfare. I think it's a stupid idea myself, warfare is horrendously brutal by it's nature, there's no such thing as a civilised war no matter how much you try to dress it up. However, if you're going to charge someone with war crimes, those are the rules we work by. A lot of them are stupid and arbitrary, and include 'what sort of weapon was used' but they're there.

They can tell it to the judge. In my opinion you've indicated that the information you deem relevant is in fact absolutely irrelevant to 99.999% of people watching.

99.999% of the people watching may not understand the practical realities of trying to fight a war in one of the most dense urban areas on the planet against an enemy that tends not to follow the 'accepted norms' we're trying to judge by.

The problem is that that definition could be twisted to say that the killing of a single person is genocide which I'm sure that we'd all agree was a bit silly. I don't think you can really accuse Hamas of genocide, terrorism sure, murder definitely but it's just not on the scale or of the same scope that most of us would associate the term genocide.

Bit of a thread hijack, but I wonder if it's not a similar concept to 'hate crimes', which are all the rage over in the US. You don't murder someone because you like them, but if you're a white guy murdering a black man, or a straight murdering a gay, all of a sudden it's a particularly heinous crime far in excess of simple murder.

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Manic Moran wrote: »

So no. I'm not going to condemn the act out of hand.

NTM

Now this is extracting the urine. Shameful

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

I’ll answer:
* How do you feel about firing rockets into civilian populations??

....but that hardly gives Israel the moral high ground as it does the same.

munchester29 wrote: »

* How do you feel about schools & hospitals being used as staging grounds for rocket fire, or as weapons and explosives depots???

An allegation that comes out far more than its substantiated....

munchester29 wrote: »

* How do you feel about summer camps where children learn how to use guns and hate their neighbours????

Like this one here...?
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/09/middle-east-israel-british-idf

munchester29 wrote: »

* How do you feel about armed forces using civilians as humans shields?

....again, hardly opening much ground between the two, as we've previously established.

munchester29 wrote: »

Israel is fighting the Hamas terrorists (strategic act) in part of a larger pan global conflict (The fight against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism).?

I'm getting old...I remember when the excuses were about communism....

Ciaran500 wrote:

Are you trying to justify suicide bombing?).?

O NOES!!!! Not Teh Suicide Bomb!!!!!

Steviemak wrote:

Shame on you, Manic Moran.

He calls it as he sees it and has a valid viewpoint, even if I don't always agree with him. There are others more worthy of ire.

Manic Moran

At the risk of being a little avant-garde, and actually citing the Red Cross, even they accept that the simple act of killing protected persons is not a war crime:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600169?OpenDocument

On the other hand, cases in which protected persons are killed as a result of acts of war -- for example, the bombardment of a civilian hospital -- are more difficult to class as wilful killing: the question is left open.

If it all that was needed was simply a case of 'Innocents were killed in a known protected area', as is being proposed in the Gaza case, then why is the IRC saying it's not necessarily that black-and-white? Intent counts.

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

At the risk of being a little avant-garde, and actually citing the Red Cross, even they accept that the simple act of killing protected persons is not a war crime:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600169?OpenDocument



If it all that was needed was simply a case of 'Innocents were killed in a known protected area', as is being proposed in the Gaza case, then why is the IRC saying it's not necessarily that black-and-white? Intent counts.

NTM

I don't know, but does that make it ok?
The Israeli's like to say how they warn civilians and try to avoid them. If I was a civilian in Gaza I think I'd go to a UN school for shelter. But now that gets bombed. This conflict has brought the IDF down to the level of terrorists, shame on them.

meditraitor

horseflesh wrote: »

Does it really?
"Genocide" would suggest the killing of millions or at least hundreds of thousands, the Israelis don't have a very good success ratio over the last 60 years then do they?

You still dont understand Genocide................ for the second time
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group

Murder is only one facet of genocide

Imprisoning a whole generation of people and limiting their access to food,medicines,power,education,transport. Denying them human rights based on their etnicity/religoius backround is also genocide.

Isreal has stolen the right to a normal life from millions of palestinians for 40 years..........

That is the gEnocide I speak of.... although the apologists will say different!

I think there should be a law, similiar to Germany/austria(holocaust deniers and the likes) when treating with people who continually apologise for the murders and savagery of the Isreali.

Ciaran500

Nodin wrote: »

An allegation that comes out far more than its substantiated....

Like the mortar team killed beside the school yesterday or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNLYH1qFWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbZyWZI3hU

bobbyjoe

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Like the mortar team killed beside the school yesterday or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNLYH1qFWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbZyWZI3hU

That make it ok?

Ciaran500

bobbyjoe wrote: »

That make it ok?

:rolleyes:

Read what I was replying to.

bobbyjoe

Ciaran500 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Read what I was replying to.

I did.
So you think that makes it ok to bomb a UN school?

horseflesh

meditraitor wrote: »

You still dont understand Genocide................ for the second time
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group

Murder is only one facet of genocide

Imprisoning a whole generation of people and limiting their access to food,medicines,power,education,transport. Denying them human rights based on their etnicity/religoius backround is also genocide.

Isreal has stolen the right to a normal life from millions of palestinians for 40 years..........

That is the gEnocide I speak of.... although the apologists will say different!

I think there should be a law, similiar to Germany/austria(holocaust deniers and the likes) when treating with people who continually apologise for the murders and savagery of the Isreali.

The "destruction" part of the definition you use would suggest to me something a bit more than maltreatment.
I think most people would tend to think of genocide as a form of mass-murder, but feel free to have your own little spin on its meaning.

Ciaran500

bobbyjoe wrote: »

I did.
So you think that makes it ok to bomb a UN school?

Of course not, but it doesn't make Israel completely accountable for it.

Hamas should not be firing from near schools and Israel should not be using mortar fire so close to a school.

Boston

What's so special about a UN school? Yes, it makes it a legitimate target. How can you defend Hamas when they use children as human shields.

Nodin

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Like the mortar team killed beside the school yesterday or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNLYH1qFWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbZyWZI3hU

So far theres been no confirmation of that. A video demonstrates nothing, as a recent thread on AH showed.

(There was yesterday video from 2006 resurrected, which showed mortar fire from an incident where the UN had abandoned the school and Hamas moved in afterwards. A UN spokesperson referred to this on CH4 news last night)

bobbyjoe

Boston wrote: »

What's so special about a UN school? Yes, it makes it a legitimate target. How can you defend Hamas when they use children as human shields.

Shouldn't a UN school be a place of sanctury for civilians? The Israelis are saying they are warning civilians to get out of the way of the fighting where are they supposed to go if not a UN school?

Don't see many people defending Hamas.
Being against this slaughter does not mean someone defends Hamas.

Ciaran500

Nodin wrote: »

So far theres been no confirmation of that. A video demonstrates nothing, as a recent thread on AH showed.

(There was yesterday video from 2006 resurrected, which showed mortar fire from an incident where the UN had abandoned the school and Hamas moved in afterwards. A UN spokesperson referred to this on CH4 news last night)

I posted about 3 separate incidents. Are they all from empty schools?

People are getting so anti Israel it seems that Hamas can do no wrong.

Nodin

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I posted about 3 separate incidents. Are they all from empty schools?

You posted two videos which alledgedly show such incidents, without any independent testimony, inquiry etc as to their veracity. Thats about as useful, informative or as verifiable as me digging up a picture of dead Arab civillians and making a "OMG-Teh HorrEr" post.

CK.1

At least someone has balls...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80904&sectionid=351020704

Venezuela expels Israeli ambassador
Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:48:20 GMT

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has ordered the Israeli ambassador to leave the country in a show of solidarity with the besieged Gazans.

The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the government “has decided to expel the Israeli ambassador and part of the personnel of the Israeli embassy” to protest Israel's hostilities against the Palestinians in Gaza, AP reported.

Chavez had earlier condemned the attacks on Gaza and called on Venezuelan Jews to take a stand against the 'murderers' in Tel Aviv.

“Now I hope that the Venezuelan Jewish community speaks out against this barbarism. Do it. Don't you strongly reject all acts of persecution?” he stated.

In a televised speech on Tuesday, Chavez said “How far will this barbarism go?”

“The president of Israel should be taken before an international court together with the president of the United States, if the world had any conscience,” he added.

Chavez also urged the people of Israel to 'stand up' against Tel Aviv's 'new holocaust'.

He derided the Israeli military, saying, “They are cowards... bombing innocent people. What great soldiers they are, how brave the soldiers of Israel are.''

Mauritania, Jordan, and Egypt have also summoned their ambassadors to Israel to express discontent with the ongoing Israeli strike on Gaza.

Medics say at least 660 Palestinians, including 215 children and 98 women, have been killed so far in the Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip.

ARQN/HGL

meditraitor

horseflesh wrote: »

The "destruction" part of the definition you use would suggest to me something a bit more than maltreatment.
I think most people would tend to think of genocide as a form of mass-murder, but feel free to have your own little spin on its meaning.

What the Isrealis have been doing to a generation of palestinians is a bit more than maltreatment but feel free to put you own big spin on its meaning..........

Now away back to fox news with ye.....