Israel threatens another large-scale Gaza war

The Saint

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

From the horses mouth as it were!!

I'm not sure you even bothered reading my post with the evidence from three independent sources. Just to refresh your memory here's what the Goldstone report says about the very video you posted:

The Mission is also aware of the public statement by Mr. Fathi Hammad, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, on 29 February 2009, which is adduced as evidence of Hamas’ use of human shields. Mr. Hammad reportedly stated that

… the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death seeking. For the Palestinian people, death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the mujahideen excel and the children excel. Accordingly,[Hamas] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machine.

476. Although the Mission finds this statement morally repugnant, it does not consider it to constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack. The Government of Israel has not identified any such cases.

Now can you provide evidence of any specific incidents where Hamas used human shields? I'm not sure why you're sticking to this so vehemently. It's not like Hamas didn't commit war crimes during the conflict.

KeithAFC

The pot calling the kettle black. That sums up this whole ****ing argument about this stupid Gaza thing. Both are as bad and as evil as each other. If it's not Israel dropping a bomb onto of a load of Palestine people, it's some extreme muslim cutting some ones head off with a knife.

Just pure evil all round and yet people want to give excuses to either side. Just open your eyes and you will see two retarded nations.

Boston

The Saint wrote: »

I'm not sure you even bothered reading my post with the evidence from three independent sources. Just to refresh your memory here's what the Goldstone report says about the very video you posted:


Now can you provide evidence of any specific incidents where Hamas used human shields? I'm not sure why you're sticking to this so vehemently. It's not like Hamas didn't commit war crimes during the conflict.

Well there is an argument that by operating out of buildings co-occupied by civilians they are using them as shields. They don't need to do so directly.

FlutterinBantam

:eek:

At last , someone who knows what I am talking about!!

The Saint

Boston wrote: »

Well there is an argument that by operating out of buildings co-occupied by civilians they are using them as shields. They don't need to do so directly.

The definition used by Goldstone, HRW and Amnesty is the forcing of civilians to stay in military areas in order to deter an attack. It seems only Israel uses the definition that operating in civilian areas constitutes using human shields. Can find a reputable source that legally defines operating in a civilian area ,rather than forcing of civilians to remain in a military targets, as using human shields?

I'm not saying what Hamas did is right but it is very different to forcing people to remain in military installations.

Buffy the bitch

Boston wrote: »

Well there is an argument that by operating out of buildings co-occupied by civilians they are using them as shields. They don't need to do so directly.

Gaza is only about 30x4 miles in size that's a rough guess I'm not even gonig look it up but it's close with about 1 million people you do the math. No matter where Hamas fight from their always going to be near innocent people it's impossible to think otherwise.

Around the time of that last large scale war in gaza, cause and effect?

True. But you could count on one hand the number of people killed by a suicide bomber during the last number of years the reason for this is because Hamas agreed to stop using them but yet Israeli terror continues.

FlutterinBantam http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...rael-gaza.html

Oh the great unbiased USA news.

Boston

The Saint wrote: »

The definition used by Goldstone, HRW and Amnesty is the forcing of civilians to stay in military areas in order to deter an attack. It seems only Israel uses the definition that operating in civilian areas constitutes using human shields. Can find a reputable source that legally defines operating in a civilian area ,rather than forcing of civilians to remain in a military targets, as using human shields?

So we'll argue legalise will we? There using humans as protection from attack, they might not be doing it at gun point, but they are doing. Rigid definitions aside.

The Saint wrote: »

I'm not saying what Hamas did is right but it is very different to forcing people to remain in military installations.

Hmm. you makes it sound like they set up a base with nice clear sign postings and then people choose set up show beside them. What actually happens is Hamas decides they are going to use your home, shop, business, school or university as a base of operations. Look at what happened at the Islamic university of Gaza. They don't need to use a gun since people can't leave their homes or jobs or education. When they object to being used in this manor, then you see fighting like that between fatah and Hamas. It's splitting hairs, both sides use human shields.

Boston

No evidence to support that Palestinians didn't kill those people themselves to frame our beloved zionist pigs.

Boston

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Gaza is only about 30x4 miles in size that's a rough guess I'm not even gonig look it up but it's close with about 1 million people you do the math. No matter where Hamas fight from their always going to be near innocent people it's impossible to think otherwise.

What your argument, that they can't help but use human shields, that if they could fight openly they would. How come hamas activity in the west bank is of a similiar nature ?

Scofflaw

uprising banned for dead baby photos without warning.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The Saint

Boston wrote: »

So we'll argue legalise will we? There using humans as protection from attack, they might not be doing it at gun point, but they are doing. Rigid definitions aside.

Hmm. you makes it sound like they set up a base with nice clear sign postings and then people choose set up show beside them. What actually happens is Hamas decides they are going to use your home, shop, business, school or university as a base of operations. Look at what happened at the Islamic university of Gaza. They don't need to use a gun since people can't leave their homes or jobs or education. When they object to being used in this manor, then you see fighting like that between fatah and Hamas. It's splitting hairs, both sides use human shields.

I assumed it was clear that we were arguing the legal basis of it. I offered three independent legal opinions on the use of human shields during the conflict. You have provided none. Again, I never said that Hamas' actions in civilians areas were legal. However, they do not constitute the use of human shields. I'd really appreciate it if people went to the bother of reading the post I made on this but here are a few nuggets.

Amnesty

Hamas and other armed groups also endangered Palestinian civilians by failing to take all feasible precautions in the conduct of their military activities, notably by firing rockets from residential areas and storing weapons, explosives and ammunition in them. They also mixed with the civilian population, although this would be difficult to avoid in the small and
overcrowded Gaza Strip, and there is no evidence that they did so with the intent of shielding themselves. The extremely high population density in Gaza, a small territory and one of the most densely populated places in the world, entails additional challenges for all the parties involved in conflict or armed confrontations.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, Hamas and other armed groups have an obligation to avoid conduct which, by intent or through recklessness, exposes the civilian population to danger, and have an obligation not to use the civilian population as a cover for their military activities. Intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective – often referred to as using “human shields” – is a war crime

Hamas and other Palestinian groups endangered civilians by firing rockets from populated residential neighbourhoods. In one case, local residents told Amnesty International that Hamas fighters had fired a rocket at night from the courtyard of a government school in the centre of Gaza City during Operation “Cast Lead”, when the schools were closed, and that the fighters were killed in an Israeli air strike on the street as they were leaving the school yard.

However, Amnesty International has seen no evidence that rockets were launched from residential houses or buildings while civilians were in these buildings. In Gaza, Palestinian fighters, like Israel soldiers, engaged in armed confrontations around residential homes where civilians were present, endangering them. The locations of these confrontations were mostly determined by Israeli forces, who entered Gaza with tanks and armoured personnel carriers and took positions deep inside residential neighbourhoods.

Amnesty International, for its part, did not find evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian groups violated the laws of war to the extent repeatedly alleged by Israel. In particular, it found no evidence that Hamas or other fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. By contrast, Amnesty International did find that Israeli forces on several occasions during Operation “Cast Lead” forced Palestinian civilians to serve
as “human shields”. In any event, international humanitarian law makes clear that use of “human shields” by one party does not release the attacking party from its legal obligations with respect to civilians.

While the presence of Hamas and other fighters and weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as “human shields”.

HRW

In the killings documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the civilian victims were used by Palestinian fighters as human shields or were shot in the crossfire between opposing forces. In each of the incidents, Israeli forces appeared in control, and Palestinian fighters had left the area in question. The civilian victims were in plain view and posed no apparent security threat.

Goldstone

The Mission did not find any evidence of civilians being forced to remain in their houses by Palestinian armed groups... No such incidents are alleged by the Israeli Government with regard to the military operations that began on 27 December 2008. The Mission received no reports of such incidents from other sources.

From the information available to it, the Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.

Now please, please, please, provide some credible legal sources to back up your assertions. You have not yet done so yet I have. Is your definition of a human shield superior to those of HRW, Amnesty and Goldstone?

You might say it's splitting hairs and that they both used human shields even though there's no credible evidence on one side and three independent reports on the other. For god sake, even the IDF or the Israeli government has provided no evidence for its claims of Hamas using human shields.

wes

Boston wrote: »

No evidence to support that Palestinians didn't kill those people themselves to frame our beloved zionist pigs.

Your talking nonsense here. If you want to make such a accusation then provide some actual proof of your accusations and changing the definitions of words to shoe horn it into your argument isn't going to work btw.

If this is the level your defense of the IDFs actions have gotten to, it is nothing short of absurd conspiracy theory level nonsense, make a claim and provide no evidence and continually insist you are correct with providing any proof and just make more and more absurd accusations.

No one here is denying that Hamas did some nasty crap and violated international law etc, but once again we see more and more ridiculous defenses of the IDFs actions, and even blaming the Palestinians on the IDF's crimes, which is nothing short of disgusting imho.

Buffy the bitch

Boston wrote: »

What your argument, that they can't help but use human shields, that if they could fight openly they would. How come hamas activity in the west bank is of a similiar nature ?

Look come on don't be stupid. If I shot at you from the side of a house does that really mean I'm using the people in the house as human shields? The answer is NO.

However this is what you call using human shields

Israelis soldiers were filmed using Sameh Amira, 24, as a human shield on February 25, during a week-long raid into the West Bank city of Nablus. Mr Amira was made to search homes in the city's casbah, or old city, during a search for wanted men and bomb-making laboratories. The casbah in the centre of the city was placed under curfew for two days and a Palestinian man was shot dead when he went onto the roof of his home.
Mr Amira's cousin, 15-year-old Amid Amira, told B'Tselem that soldiers also forced him to search three houses, making him enter rooms, empty cupboards and open windows.
An 11-year-old girl, Jihan Dadush, told B'Tselem that soldiers took her from her home three days later, on February 28, forcing her to open the door of a neighboring apartment and enter ahead of them. The soldiers then took her home, she said.
In her testimony to B'Tselem, Jihan said that after the soldiers left, "I was shaking with fear. I was afraid they would kill me or put me in jail. The only thing I wanted to do was sleep. I am afraid that the soldiers will come back and take me".
B'Tselem said that it was clear from the testimonies that the soldiers believed the houses presented a risk and that they were therefore knowingly placing the Palestinians in danger.
Sarit Michaeli, a spokeswoman for B'Tselem said that the group had written to the judge advocate-general to demand a thorough investigation of the use of human shields. "The use of civilians especially a 11-year-old is very problematic and we want the army to investigate it properly using military police rather than an internal inquiry mechanism."


In August 2002, a 19-year-old Palestinian student, Nidal Daraghmeh, was killed when troops in the West Bank town of Tubas forced him to knock on the door of a neighbouring building where a Hamas fugitive was hiding. Gunfire erupted and Daraghmeh was killed.


Yesh Din, another Israeli human rights group, has reported that the Israeli army used peaceful Palestinian villages to carry out training exercises. The group said that the villagers were harassed and scared as two battalions of reservists acted out a battle in their midst for three hours. The exercises were carried out without warning in the early morning in the villages of Beit Lid and Safarin last month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel

Keeping people locked in the house while the army shoot away at people is using human shields, not only that but it's against International law. Oh no on second thoughts it's Israel the country that can do no wrong.

Boston

The Saint wrote: »

I assumed it was clear that were were arguing the legal basis of it. I offered three independent legal opinions on the use of human shields during the conflict. You have provided none. Again, I never said that Hamas' actions in civilians areas were legal. However, they do not constitute the use of human shields. I'd really appreciate it if people went to the bother of reading the post I made on this but here are a few nuggets.

...

You might say it's splitting hairs and that they both used human shields even though there's no credible evidence on one side and three independent reports on the other. For god sake, even the IDF or the Israeli government has provided no evidence for its claims of Hamas using human shields.

I acknowledged that Hamas don't meet the legal requirements for having been deemed to use human shields. You're little rant-ant is rather pointless as such. A ross by any other name is still a rose in my opinion. Both Hamas and Israeli troops hide behind civilians. This is a point neither of us disputes, but you seem to argue what hamas does is ok/less evil because it doesn't meet the legal definition of human shield. Thats splitting hairs. I'm sure you'd call many of the isreali military actions in the west bank and gaza acts of genocide, however they've never met the legal criteria. Does that make the wholesale slaughter of innocent people OK?

Boston

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Look come on don't be stupid. If I shot at you from the side of a house does that really mean I'm using the people in the house as human shields? The answer is NO.

How about using a university to store weapons because you know israeli will be slow to risk killing scores of students in a rocket attack? If you're specifically shooting from a house with people in it to prevent retaliation, then yes, you're using the people as human shields.

wes

Boston wrote: »

I acknowledged that Hamas don't meet the legal requirements for having been deemed to use human shields. You're little rant-ant is rather pointless as such. A ross by any other name is still a rose in my opinion. Both Hamas and Israeli troops hide behind civilians. This is a point neither of us disputes, but you seem to argue what hamas does is ok/less evil because it doesn't meet the legal definition of human shield.

Holding a gun to someone head and hiding behind them is a hell of a lot worse than operating in a civilian area. To pretend that it is not worse, is ridiculous. The IDF has been shown to basically use people at gun point to shield themselves, and there is no proof that Hamas has done so.

Now, both sides operated in civilian area's and that is completely wrong, but to try and defend the IDF by trying to diminish holding someone at gun point to shield yourself is ridiculous. The IDF went a great deal further in endangering civilians, when they held them at gun point to shield themselves.

Boston wrote: »

Thats splitting hairs. I'm sure you'd call many of the isreali military actions in the west bank and gaza acts of genocide, however they've never met the legal criteria. Does that make the wholesale slaughter of innocent people OK?

No one has called what Israel did genocide, and as such it is a pointless argument as you aren't actually arguing against what people have posted, but what you wished they posted.

The Saint

Boston wrote: »

I acknowledged that Hamas don't meet the legal requirements for having been deemed to use human shields. You're little rant-ant is rather pointless as such. A ross by any other name is still a rose in my opinion. Both Hamas and Israeli troops hide behind civilians. This is a point neither of us disputes, but you seem to argue what hamas does is ok/less evil because it doesn't meet the legal definition of human shield. Thats splitting hairs. I'm sure you'd call many of the isreali military actions in the west bank and gaza acts of genocide, however they've never met the legal criteria. Does that make the wholesale slaughter of innocent people OK?

Fair enough. We agree that what Hamas did does not legally constitute using human shields. Once again, I never sought to downplay Hamas' actions in the conflict but I'd rather have an arguement based on law and fact. Hamas recklessly endangered the lives of Palestinians by their actions and in that sense violated international law. I also agree with Goldstone, HRW, Amnesty etc, that Hamas commited war crimes and possible crimes against humanity by launching rockets into Israeli civilian centres. It is not me that is arguing in support of Hamas. I can't stand the cunts. There seems to be very few people here defending Hamas' actions in light of all the reports against them. That's why there isn't really an arguement here about them. Most agree that the actions they have been accused of using in these reports are inexcusable.

However, there seems to be a few people here adamently opposed to seeing the IDF's wrongs and will engage in mental gynastics to avoid conceding a point.

Oh, and please don't insult my intelligence by stating that I would argue that the IDF's actions constitute genocide. I have never done such a thing. Actually not too long ago on a thread in after hours I reprimanded and argued against a poster who used that definition in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. So you can retract your assuming statement.

I'm not prone to hyperbole or exaggerations and try to base my posts on evidence and facts.

wes

Boston wrote: »

How about using a university to store weapons because you know israeli will be slow to risk killing scores of students in a rocket attack? If you're specifically shooting from a house with people in it to prevent retaliation, then yes, you're using the people as human shields.

The IDF have military bases in civilian area's e.g. Camp Rabin in Tel Aviv. So does Israel use its own people as Human Shields then, as per your logic? Personally, I would say they are using them as Human Shields, but you seem intent on expanding the definition, so I take if you want to remain consistent, you will have to say that the IDF use its own people as Human Shields, that is assuming that you claim of Hamas storing weapons in a University during the Gaza conflict is true that is.

Also, doesn't Israel put 1000's of it civilians on Palestinian territory, and therefore put them in danger, seeing as they are basically using them to invader other people land?

FlutterinBantam

Boston wrote: »

How about using a university to store weapons because you know israeli will be slow to risk killing scores of students in a rocket attack? If you're specifically shooting from a house with people in it to prevent retaliation, then yes, you're using the people as human shields.

Absolutely!!!

What kind of logic can these people not understand.

Do these people think we are all idiots or something.?

Boston

wes wrote: »

Holding a gun to someone head and hiding behind them is a hell of a lot worse than operating in a civilian area. To pretend that it is not worse, is ridiculous. The IDF has been shown to basically use people at gun point to shield themselves, and there is no proof that Hamas has done so.

Now, both sides operated in civilian area's and that is completely wrong, but to try and defend the IDF by trying to diminish holding someone at gun point to shield yourself is ridiculous. The IDF went a great deal further in endangering civilians, when they held them at gun point to shield themselves.

To pretend one is worse then the other is ridiculous. I don't believe you're find a post by me defending the Israeli defence forces. I'm merely here to point out double standards which pop up with predictable frequency.

wes wrote: »

No one has called what Israel did genocide, and as such it is a pointless argument as you aren't actually arguing against what people have posted, but what you wished they posted.

It's a common accusation and I used it to illustrate that the law can be too narrow in its definitions.

Boston

wes wrote: »

The IDF have military bases in civilian area's e.g. Camp Rabin in Tel Aviv. So does Israel use its own people as Human Shields then, as per your logic?

Not really, since unlike the Israeli defence forces, Hamas doesn't care if the Israeli they kill is wearing a uniform, is a child, is a civilian or a combatant.. Being located close to civilians probably makes Israelis bases more of a target due to the chances of inflicting damage on the civilian populous. I hear this before from "your side" when it came to suicide bombing buses. Apparently it was ok since Israeli soldiers use civilian buses for transport and sure, isn't every Israeli adult a potential solider.

wes

Boston wrote: »

To pretend one is worse then the other is ridiculous. I don't believe you're find a post by me defending the Israeli defence forces. I'm merely here to point out double standards which pop up with predictable frequency.

You blamed the Palestinians on the actions of the IDF earlier. You are defending the IDF, and coming up with more and more ridiculous excuses to do so:

Boston wrote: »

No evidence to support that Palestinians didn't kill those people themselves to frame our beloved zionist pigs.

I fail to see how the above isn't a defense of the IDF's actions. You are even defending the IDF now, by trying to suggest that holding a gun to someones head and hiding behind it is the same as operating in civilian area's. You are using a false moral equivalence to defend the IDFs actions, and tbh it is pretty ridiculous argument.

Boston wrote: »

It's a common accusation and I used it to illustrate that the law can be too narrow in its definitions.

An accusation made by no one here, and as such a non-starter argument. It is hyperbole and nothing else.

wes

Boston wrote: »

Not really, since unlike the Israeli defence forces, Hamas doesn't care if the Israeli they kill is wearing a uniform, is a child, is a civilian or a combatant..

The IDF attacked civilian targets during the most recent Gaza conflict, as per the Goldstone, HRW and Amnesty reports. So what your saying here is false. Neither Hamas or the IDF care about murdering civilians.

Once again, you choose to defend the IDFs numerous murderous assaults on civilians, by denying the IDFs clear intent on attacking civilians targets.

Boston wrote: »

Being located close to civilians probably makes Israelis bases more of a target due to the chances of inflicting damage on the civilian populous.

Yes, and as per your own logic, it means the IDF is using Human Shields. The fact that you deny this, shows that your own bizarre definition isn't applied equally to both sides. To put it simply. you are being inconsistent.

Boston wrote: »

I hear this before from "your side" when it came to suicide bombing buses. Apparently it was ok since Israeli soldiers use civilian buses for transport and sure, isn't every Israeli adult a potential solider.

Has anyone this thread excused a suicide bombing? The answer is of course no, and I sure as hell didn't do it either.

However, using your logic the IDF used the people on the bus as Human Shields, seeing as you have decided on such a expansive new definition, but of course you don't apply it equally to both sides. Now, I would of course disagree, as I think your new expansive definition is absurd, but you seem to insist on applying it inconsistently for some odd reason. Why is that?

Boston

You keep saying "areas". It gives the impression that Hamas operate near civilian instead of on top of them in the same buildings, and rooms. They deliberately intermingle with the civilian population for the purpose of making it difficult for Israeli gun ships to attack them. I don't understand how you can claim otherwise.


As for my comment, in fairness I called the zionist pigs as well. :rolleyes::rolleyes: I made a ridiculous post in response to a ridiculous post. A bit of an eye for an eye on an Israel Vs Palestine thread, how ironic.

Nodin

Boston wrote: »

Not really, since unlike the Israeli defence forces, ..............

Theres a few thousand dead Palestinian civillians that give the lie to that.

wes

Boston wrote: »

You keep saying "areas". It gives the impression that Hamas operate near civilian instead of on top of them in the same buildings, and rooms. They deliberately intermingle with the civilian population for the purpose of making it difficult for Israeli gun ships to attack them. I don't understand how you can claim otherwise.

I haven't claimed otherwise actually. I am just pointing out that your are being inconsistent in your condemnation, and making false claims of moral equivalence.

Boston wrote: »

As for my comment, in fairness I called the zionist pigs as well. :rolleyes::rolleyes: I made a ridiculous post in response to a ridiculous post. A bit of an eye for an eye on an Israel Vs Palestine thread, how ironic.

Considering the claims you have made in spite of the facts shown repeatedly, it is kind of hard to tell when your are being purposefully ridiculous e.g. Claiming the IDF actually give a rats ass about Palestinian civilians despite all the dead Palestinians civilians, and the various reports that show otherwise.

Oh and before you claim that I think otherwise. Hamas doesn't give a rat ass either about civilians either, but I have never said otherwise.

Boston

wes wrote: »

The IDF attacked civilian targets during the most recent Gaza conflict, as per the Goldstone, HRW and Amnesty reports. So what your saying here is false. Neither Hamas or the IDF care about murdering civilians.

Hamas doesn't care about killing Israeli civilians, IDF cares about the PR of killing Palestinians.

wes wrote: »

Once again, you choose to defend the IDFs numerous murderous assaults on civilians, by denying the IDFs clear intent on attacking civilians targets.

You've dilberately missed the point. the IDF can't use civilians as shields since Hamas don't care what Israeli they kill, from milk man to police officer. I don't know how to say it more plainly then that.

wes

Boston wrote: »

Hamas doesn't care about killing Israeli civilians, IDF cares about the PR of killing Palestinians.

The IDF only cares about the PR, well you are right there, but they still murder plenty of civilians and this has been proven by various reports into the Gaza conflict, so there is no point in denying it.

Boston wrote: »

You've dilberately missed the point. the IDF can't use civilians as shields since Hamas don't care what Israeli they kill, from milk man to police officer. I don't know how to say it more plainly then that.

No, I think your point is a nonsensical excuse for one of the many crimes of the IDF, and I treat it as such.

Now you denying again that IDF using Human Shields, as they can't use them because of Hamas? Your getting more and more ridiculous with your defense of Israel use of Human Shields. Again, the Goldstone, HRW and Amnesty reports show clearly that the IDF used Human Shields, why you continue to offer more and more absurd excuses is beyond me. Its very simple, the IDF used Human Shields, the actions of Hamas does not excuse this. This action is the fault of the IDF and there is simply no defense for this disgusting act.

The Saint

Anyway, I'm done with this for the night. I have a midnight date with a skipload of drink. I hope you all have a good new years and i hope everyone enjoys their night. Check you all later.

Boston

wes wrote: »

Now you denying again that IDF using Human Shields, as they can't use them because of Hamas? Your getting more and more ridiculous with your defense of Israel use of Human Shields. Again, the Goldstone, HRW and Amnesty reports show clearly that the IDF used Human Shields, why you continue to offer more and more absurd excuses is beyond me. Its very simple, the IDF used Human Shields, the actions of Hamas does not excuse this. This action is the fault of the IDF and there is simply no defense for this disgusting act.

Try to keep up, you accused them (The IDF) of using Israelis as human shields. I pointed out that hamas doesn't care about killing israelis. Now you go from that to "The IDF doesn't use Palestinians as human shields" I don't know. Perhaps if I could I'd understand the thought process behind defending terrorists. Shrug

Buffy the bitch

Boston wrote: »

How about using a university to store weapons because you know israeli will be slow to risk killing scores of students in a rocket attack? If you're specifically shooting from a house with people in it to prevent retaliation, then yes, you're using the people as human shields.

"Israel slow to killing scores of people" My god you love a good joke don't you.

By the way wasn't the UN that Israel hit also hiding weapons :rolleyes:

Boston

You can't even quote me without distorting what I said. Students I said. Do you know who manned some those UN positions shelled by Israel? The Irish army. Bet you didn't know that, bet you don't have the first clue about the conflict beyond what you're feed. Don't let that stop you have an opinion though. You're not worth replying to.,

wes

Boston wrote: »

Try to keep up, you accused them (The IDF) of using Israelis as human shields. I pointed out that hamas doesn't care about killing israelis.

I taught we had moved on from that conversation, well I had in any case.

Actually, I didn't accuse them of doing so (perhaps you need to keep up). I just used your expansive definition (which as I said earlier, I disagree with), and even if Hamas doesn't care about killing civilians, the IDF are still endangering civilians by located military bases in civilian area's as any attacks on them could also hurt civilians and increases risk to them, so the IDF can use them (Human Shields, as per your expansive definition) and as such you are being extremely inconsistent imho.

Simply put, I don't share your expansive definition of what is and isn't a Human Shield, I just applied it to the IDF, to show that you are being inconsistent, which you then did so as I expected. The whole point, as I stated several times is to show your inconsistent application of your own expansive definition, which you have done so several times, and as such I thank you for proving my point.

Boston wrote: »

Now you go from that to "The IDF doesn't use Palestinians as human shields" I don't know. Perhaps if I could I'd understand the thought process behind defending terrorists. Shrug

I don't remember defending any terrorists. I do remember IDF murderous actions being defended and repeatedly being denied and any number of mental gymnastics to excuse the IDF's use of Human Shields, which you have done so again and again.

Now, I will state again my general disgust with Hamas and there actions. There is no excuse for them, and I would expect you stop your nonsensical accusations of defending terrorism, especially as you have defended the IDF's targeting of civilians, by false moral equivalence or simple denial.

Buffy the bitch

Boston wrote: »

You can't even quote me without distorting what I said. Students I said. Do you know who manned some those UN positions shelled by Israel? The Irish army. Bet you didn't know that, bet you don't have the first clue about the conflict beyond what you're feed. Don't let that stop you have an opinion though. You're not worth replying to.,

Oh my god Irish were there? Are you serious. This is hardly the same group of people that were getting shelled by the IDF even though they on the phone telling them they were there, that same people?

Oh yeah I'm very sorry Israel is slow to kill students?

On December 27, 2008, the first day of the Israeli offensive called "Operation Cast Lead," a drone-launched missile hit a group of university students as they waited for a bus on a crowded residential street in central Gaza City, killing 12 civilians. The Israeli military has failed to explain why it targeted the group on a crowded downtown street with no known military activity in the area at the time.

Let me guess these students instaed of carrying books were carrying weapons?

Boston

wes wrote: »

I taught we had moved on from that conversation, well I had in any case.

Perhaps in your little mind we had, like so many other things. Unfortunately/fortunately we don't all live in your head. When debating an issue you don't just get to switch topic and act surprised when people continue to discuss the original thread.

wes

Boston wrote: »

Perhaps in your little mind we had, like so many other things.

"Little Mind"? Lol, no need to be so personal. It was a mistake on my part. I did address your point, when you pointed out my error. I don't know what else you expect from me?

Also, just to add I apologize for my error. Does that sort things out?

Boston wrote: »

Unfortunately/fortunately we don't all live in your head.

Of course we don't. Who would suggest such a thing ?

Boston wrote: »

When debating an issue you don't just get to switch topic and act surprised when people continue to discuss the original thread.

So, I take it we can't invent new definitions for words, when they don't suit our arguments either then?!? Right? Wouldn't want to be inconsistent, right?

Anyway, apologies for my mistake. Will endeavor for it not to happen again.

Nodin

Boston wrote: »

You've dilberately missed the point. the IDF can't use civilians as shields since Hamas don't care what Israeli they kill, from milk man to police officer. I don't know how to say it more plainly then that.

The IDF use Palestinians as human shields, obviously.....Quite openly and (by IDF regulations) legally too, until a few years back.

KeithAFC

So what would people think if two big bombs took out Israel and Palestine?

wes

KeithAFC wrote: »

So what would people think if two big bombs took out Israel and Palestine?

I see no reason for such a drastic measure. The average person on the street, would eventually get along just fine, once the fear mongers are shut up. Hardliners on both sides are the problem, the average guy on the street will eventually cop on.

Boston

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Oh my god Irish were there? Are you serious. This is hardly the same group of people that were getting shelled by the IDF even though they on the phone telling them they were there, that same people?

Oh yeah I'm very sorry Israel is slow to kill students?

Let me guess these students instaed of carrying books were carrying weapons?

Look come on don't be stupid. You've not given me enough information to tell what specific incident you're talking about, but yes, Israel has deliberately targeted UN positions including Irish UN positions, most notable in the Leb.

Nodin wrote: »

The IDF use Palestinians as human shields, obviously.....Quite openly and (by IDF regulations) legally too, until a few years back.

Look come on don't be stupid, read the thread, I acknowledged this.

KeithAFC

wes wrote: »

I see no reason for such a drastic measure. The average person on the street, would eventually get along just fine, once the fear mongers are shut up. Hardliners on both sides are the problem, the average guy on the street will eventually cop on.

I would agree but i feel it's the only thing that can solve the problem. Let's destroy Israel and Palestine and hopefully that will be it.

wes

KeithAFC wrote: »

I would agree but i feel it's the only thing that can solve the problem. Let's destroy Israel and Palestine and hopefully that will be it.

The issue between both side are certainly hard to sort out, but a ready made solution already exists and that is the 2 state solution, but the problem with that is that the 2 state solution does have a time limit due to colonization in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Colonization (all of it) needs to stop for there to be a chance of any medium term peace happening.

Otherwise, without room for a viable Palestinian state, then a defacto one state solution will exist (1 state already exists btw), which will either be the same apartheid one we have now, or a state with one person, one vote.

BlaasForRafa

The topic of this thread was about Israel threatening another large scale gaza war. There is no evidence, either political or military to back this up. As was previously pointed out the agency that put out this article is a part of the Iranian state broadcasting service and was obviously a ruse to deflect attention from the political situation in Iran.

The thread has gone way off topic and has become a typical thread that seems to revolve around some people wanting to slag off Israel and/or the IDF. Its time that the thread got back to the actual topic or was locked.

FlutterinBantam

Some Hamas rocket attacks on Israel last night,Israeli air strikes followed, no casualties I'm led to believe.

Mahatma coat

any form of link to this?

Mahatma coat

AFP has this
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jp1ryN_uhQnnOYVA3UG7rTHV9neg

AFP wrote:

Israeli air force hits Gaza after rocket attack, 2 wounded

(AFP) – 10 hours ago

GAZA CITY — Israeli aircraft attacked at least four targets in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip early Saturday, wounding two people in an apparent retaliation for a rocket strike on Israel, officials said.

Two explosions were heard in Gaza City, one north of the city and one explosion in the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis. All the missiles appeared to land in open fields, Palestinian medics and witnesses said.

Two people, including a child, were lightly wounded, medics said.

An Israeli army spokesman confirmed aircraft had attacked Gaza, but gave no further details.

Israel routinely retaliates for rocket attacks from Gaza and these airstrikes came after a rocket hit the southern Israeli town of Netivot on Thursday without causing casualties.

It marked the latest violence along Gaza's border, which has been mostly quiet since a war Israel launched on the Islamist Hamas in Gaza on December 27, 2008 in response to rocket fire ended with mutual ceasefires on January 18.

The ceasefires have largely held, despite violations by both sides.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

note the word apparent, the initial strike has not been confirmed AT THIS POINT, doubtless something will be presented to 'Justify' this attack



heres a link to said report of rocket attack, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3828182,00.html or failed rocket attack whatrver,

FlutterinBantam

A rocket into Netivot on Thur. was not too "apparent".

arybvtcw0eolkf

The Saint wrote: »

I really don't know why I bother. I

Because you care, and you don't just post because your blinded by hatred.

As you know I don't get involved in these discussions anymore, but I just wanted to acknowledge that your efforts don't go unnoticed - thanks.

The Saint

Adam Prehistoric Koala wrote: »

Because you care, and you don't just post because your blinded by hatred.

As you know I don't get involved in these discussions anymore, but I just wanted to acknowledge that your efforts don't go unnoticed - thanks.

Cheers Mairt. I appreciate it.

Manic Moran

Mahatma coat wrote: »

AFP has this
heres a link to said report of rocket attack, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3828182,00.html or failed rocket attack whatrver,

I've always maintained a dislike for 'effect' being taken into consideration when looking at an attempted event. For example, the only difference between murder and attempted murder is that in the second case, the victim got lucky, or the attacker was incompetent. The desired endstate and mindset of the attacker, however, remained the same. However, in our society, for some reason we reward the antagonist's poor luck or incapability by cutting them slack.

Can anyone explain the logic behind that?

NTM