11 points about Israel,Lebanon and Palestinians

Page 5 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

26 Jan 2009, 4:35 pm

ducasse wrote:
Because the use of white phosphorus near civilian areas is against international law, & this specific use of it might amount to a war crime.


At this point, would you care to admit that "civilian areas" is an outmoded and completely-undefineable term when dealing with terrorists who commandeer civilian homes (with the civilians still inside) and use them to fire ammunition from? And when, often enough, the terrorists are more or less given permission by the "innocent civilians" to do just that? There are no terrorists outside of "civilian areas", since the term "terrorist" loses all meaning as soon as they leave civilian areas and move onto a battlefield. When they do that, they are then "soldiers", instead of cowards who hide behind women and children, or their preferred term, "human shields". But they won't step onto a battlefield (i.e. away from civilians), because they're despicable cowards. So, they shoot from other peoples' homes, deliberately making it both very difficult and extremely unpopular for Israel to respond in any effective way to such weapons fire.

ducasse wrote:
Because even if everyone on this thread agreed with you that Israel was justified in its actions, & that the blame for any civilian deaths rested with Hamas because they chose to live in a civilian area, Israel still would not be justified in using phosphorus, which ignites upon contact with air & indiscriminately burns everything around it.


I hope you become a general one day, and show the world how to fight an absolutely perfect war, where no one innocent ever dies. :roll:
You ask the impossible -- clean combat against terrorists ingrained as deeply as possible within civilian areas -- as if it is an actual option.

How would you handle the Gaza civilian-dwelling terrorists, hot shot? Yeah, I thought so. No one else knows either. So, give Israel a break while they try and find the best options to defend themselves from these constant, daily rocket attacks into their civilian territory. Which is actual civilian territory, with 100% unarmed non-combatant citizens, just trying to survive on their own property. Israeli soldiers don't fight from civilians' homes because, unlike the Gazan terrorists, Israeli soldiers actually want civilians to survive, whereas the terrorists don't give a hoot who lives or dies, on their side or Israel's, as long as "jihad" is being done. They are scum, and they need to be killed for Israel's AND the Palestinians' sakes!


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Jan 2009, 5:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

ducasse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 938

26 Jan 2009, 4:47 pm

Please don't do the strawman thing Ragtime, & the sarcasm isn't necessary. I can't imagine that you really mistook me as saying any war which results in death is unjustified. I made the point that Israel are attacking civilian areas, claiming the enemy is responsible for any civilian deaths that might happen accidentally as a result of Israeli action, but then, in using white phosphorus, they behave as if they actually wish to maximise civilian casualties & kill people as randomly as they can manage.

Even in terms of Israel's own justification for their actions this is wrong. The fact that it is impossible to avoid killing innocent people in any war doesn't mean anyone is absolved of the responsibility to minimise civilian casualties.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

26 Jan 2009, 5:18 pm

ducasse wrote:
Please don't do the strawman thing Ragtime, & the sarcasm isn't necessary. I can't imagine that you really mistook me as saying any war which results in death is unjustified. I made the point that Israel are attacking civilian areas, claiming the enemy is responsible for any civilian deaths that might happen accidentally as a result of Israeli action, but then, in using white phosphorus, they behave as if they actually wish to maximise civilian casualties & kill people as randomly as they can manage.
Even in terms of Israel's own justification for their actions this is wrong. The fact that it is impossible to avoid killing innocent people in any war doesn't mean anyone is absolved of the responsibility to minimise civilian casualties.


To address, and indeed answer the above, let me repost something I posted hours ago in this thread which you seem to have trouble reading:

Red Cross representative:
Quote:
"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," [Peter] Herby [head of the International Committee of the Red Cross mines-arms unit] told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."


Please have your vision checked if you still missed this.
(Large type for the vision-impaired.)


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


BrokenRobot
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29
Location: Coventry, UK

26 Jan 2009, 5:31 pm

Ok, there is simply too much to quote, but those of you who are busy demonising Israel seem to be ignoring certain facts...

On the issue of land, it was previously owned by the British until a few years after the second world war, and given to the Israelis who fled oppression. At that time, the Palestinians had little to no interest in that land, since it was of little agricultural value, etc.

However, once the settlers began to make something of it, the Palestinians rather conveniently changed their minds.

There have been several attacks on Israel by the Arab nations over the last century. All instigated by the Arab nations, and all driven back by Israel. But it's no longer about land anymore. That's just an excuse.

Hamas has openly said that their goal is to exterminate the Israelis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Israel's goal was to exterminate Palestinians, surely they would have done so by now. If they were capable of driving back enemies on all sides during the six days war, it would be a piece of cake to steamroll over your so-called 'innocents'. Now, I know not every Palestinian is a terrorist, and many on both sides wish for peace, but the Islamic nations of the Middle East are not exactly known for their political or ethical sense. A group like Hamas knows it cannot destroy a whole country in a straight fight, so they play games of subversion, hiding amongst their own people, firing rockets blindly into Israeli land with no regard for where they hit, and goad them into retaliation. And what nation wouldn't retaliate after rockets are fired at their people? That they did more damage in return is a moot point. Are you saying they should simply sit there and take it?

Israel is surrounded on all sides by people who hate them simply because they're Jews. Jews have got it in the neck at every turn, throughout the centuries. I'd say that justifies a little returning fire.


_________________
"Beware the Alien, the Mutant, the Hairy Tick."


ducasse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 938

26 Jan 2009, 5:48 pm

Actually I am vision impaired.

The Red Cross may well have said that, Amnesty International thought something very different was going on (but of course they're virulently anti-Israel) There are reports from Gazan hospitals of civilian with burns consistent with the use of white phosphorus, including civilians dieing of what had seemed to be only very minor burns:

the guardian

As it seems important to you to show that this white phosphorus wasn't used on civilians, can I take it that you concede it would be grotesque & immoral for Israel to have chucked this stuff about indiscriminately?



BrokenRobot
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29
Location: Coventry, UK

26 Jan 2009, 6:30 pm

ducasse wrote:
Actually I am vision impaired.

The Red Cross may well have said that, Amnesty International thought something very different was going on (but of course they're virulently anti-Israel) There are reports from Gazan hospitals of civilian with burns consistent with the use of white phosphorus, including civilians dieing of what had seemed to be only very minor burns:

the guardian

As it seems important to you to show that this white phosphorus wasn't used on civilians, can I take it that you concede it would be grotesque & immoral for Israel to have chucked this stuff about indiscriminately?


You're reading the Guardian? There's your problem right there.


_________________
"Beware the Alien, the Mutant, the Hairy Tick."


psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665
Location: w london

26 Jan 2009, 7:20 pm

BrokenRobot wrote:
... Jews have got it in the neck at every turn, throughout the centuries. I'd say that justifies a little returning fire.


On this particular point i have to disagree strongly on principle (if that is what your meant).

The events of 100s of years ago cannot be used to justify any aggressive action in the present whatsoever.



history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,367
Location: X

26 Jan 2009, 7:53 pm

psych wrote:
BrokenRobot wrote:
... Jews have got it in the neck at every turn, throughout the centuries. I'd say that justifies a little returning fire.


On this particular point i have to disagree strongly on principle (if that is what your meant).

The events of 100s of years ago cannot be used to justify any aggressive action in the present whatsoever.


I agree. Just because the Jews had 6 million of their people killed is no reason to kill innocent palestinians in mass numbers.


_________________
X


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

26 Jan 2009, 9:28 pm

history_of_psychiatry wrote:

I agree. Just because the Jews had 6 million of their people killed is no reason to kill innocent palestinians in mass numbers.


The Hamas types hurling rockets and unfortified villages have a bit to do with the killing. Since the Hamas types insist on using Mosques, Schools and Hospitals as fire bases and hide behind women's skirts and baby cribs there is no surprise that the number of collateral casualties will be rather high.

It goes like this: if a Hamas rocketeer is hiding behind 100 school children blast the rocketeers even if 100 children die in the process. It is called war. The Allies in WW2 nearly a million civilians since the Axis bosses insisted on locating factories in or near cities. It is called war.

Collateral Damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Get used to it.

ruveyn



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

27 Jan 2009, 9:51 am

ducasse wrote:
As it seems important to you to show that this white phosphorus wasn't used on civilians, can I take it that you concede it would be grotesque & immoral for Israel to have chucked this stuff about indiscriminately?


"Indiscriminately". There's another of those terms which has little meaning among civilians who often willingly let terrorists into their homes to fight Israelis therefrom. Remember that the vast majority of Palestinian "civilians" (implication: peaceful) voted for an openly, proudly, and declaratively terrorist leadership, a leadership which straightly states that their goal is to kill all Israeli citizens! These Palestinian "civilians" cheer in the streets when Israeli children are intentionally killed by suicide bombers!

As I said earlier, surely some citizens resist Hamas making their homes into terrorist bases, but Hamas' landslide victory means that the Palestinian people have generally been brainwashed to the point of welcoming this usurping of their property if it means more dead Israelis.

So, I can't attach any definite meaning to your word "indiscriminately" as it would apply in Gaza. But, it does apply to Israeli land, since their soldiers are out in the open away from Israeli civilians. Indeed, the Palestinians indiscriminately fire rockets into Israel on a daily basis, starting on the day Israel gave up Gaza to them several years ago, and they have no military targets in mind. Death is all they seek, so why aim? Interestingly, I don't notice you having any problem with that. :?: You blame Israel for doing something "indiscriminately", but the Gazan terrorists get a free pass on that with you. You go on about international law as it applies to Israel, but never as it applies to the Palestinians firing rockets into civilian areas without any Israeli soldiers as targets -- no, the Palestinians deliberately fire into purely 100% civilian areas, in the hopes of killing regular Israeli men, women and children going about their normal days. But that doesn't bother you; you're more concerned with Israel's trying to kill terrorists than with Palestinians trying to kill non-combatant civilians. Again, the Palestinians literally sing and dance in the streets when they find their rockets have killed non-combatant civilians, and they're no less jubilant in their open celebrations when the victims are children. But, that doesn't bother you.

The Palestinians also were caught on tape singing and dancing in the streets on 9/11, you'll remember. Americans have had our own taste of Muslim suicide/homicide attacks. Nor are such attacks specific to Israel or America. Muslim extremists blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces all over the globe, so that's clearly more about them and their religious beliefs than about Israel, since they terrorize civilian populations with suicide attacks all over the world. Remember the bombing in London? Fifty-something innocent Britons killed for Islam.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 27 Jan 2009, 10:24 am, edited 12 times in total.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,411
Location: Ontario, Canada

27 Jan 2009, 10:02 am

ruveyn wrote:
history_of_psychiatry wrote:

I agree. Just because the Jews had 6 million of their people killed is no reason to kill innocent palestinians in mass numbers.


The Hamas types hurling rockets and unfortified villages have a bit to do with the killing. Since the Hamas types insist on using Mosques, Schools and Hospitals as fire bases and hide behind women's skirts and baby cribs there is no surprise that the number of collateral casualties will be rather high.

It goes like this: if a Hamas rocketeer is hiding behind 100 school children blast the rocketeers even if 100 children die in the process. It is called war. The Allies in WW2 nearly a million civilians since the Axis bosses insisted on locating factories in or near cities. It is called war.

Collateral Damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Get used to it.

ruveyn


Yes, that's it. Let the hate flow through you!

You are defined by your hate. You breathe it, eat it, drink it, make love to it.

ImageImage



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,411
Location: Ontario, Canada

27 Jan 2009, 10:33 am

LePetitPrince wrote:
1) In the Middle East it is always the Arabs who attack first and always Israel that is defending themselves. This defense is called a reprisal.

2) Israel has the right to kill civilians. That is called "legitimate defense" , never terrorism.

3) When Israel kills civilians en masse, the western powers claim that it is more measured. This is called "reaction of the international community."

4) The Palestinians and the Lebanese have no right to capture soldiers of Israel inside military installations with sentries and combat posts. This is called, "Kidnapping of defenseless people."

5) Israel has the right to kidnap anytime and anywhere as many Lebanese and Palestinians as they want. Currently there are more than 10 thousand, 300 of whom are children and a thousand are women. No proof of guilt is needed. Israel has the right to keep kidnapped prisoners indefinitely, even if they are authorities democratically elected by the Palestinians. This is called "terrorist prisoners."

6) When the word Hezbollah is mentioned, it is compulsory in the same sentence to contain the words "supported and financed by Syria and by Iran."

7) When you mention "Israel" it is forbidden to make any mention of the words "supported and financed by the U.S." This may give the impression that the conflict is uneven and that Israel's existence is not in danger.

8) When referring to Israel, expressions that are prohibited: "Occupied Territories," "Violations of UN resolutions," "Violations of human rights" or "Geneva Convention."

9) Both the Palestinians and the Lebanese are always "cowardly," they are hidden among the civilian population, which does not want them. If they sleep in their homes, with their families, that gives them the name of "cowards." Israel has a right to destroy with bombs and missiles the neighborhoods where they are sleeping. This is called a "precision surgical action."

10) The Israelis speak better English, French, Spanish or Portuguese than the Arabs. Therefore they and those who support them must be interviewed more and have more opportunities than the Arabs to explain the present Rules of the Editorial Staff (from 1 to 10) to the general public. That is called "journalistic neutrality."

11) All those who are not in accordance with the Rules of Writing above are "highly dangerous anti-Semitic terrorists."


Both sides of this conflict are equally bloodthirsty, equally horrible, equally monstrous. Let's stop pretending that one side is virtuous and other is not.



Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,864
Location: Seattle, WA

27 Jan 2009, 4:20 pm

slowmutant wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
1) In the Middle East it is always the Arabs who attack first and always Israel that is defending themselves. This defense is called a reprisal.

2) Israel has the right to kill civilians. That is called "legitimate defense" , never terrorism.

3) When Israel kills civilians en masse, the western powers claim that it is more measured. This is called "reaction of the international community."

4) The Palestinians and the Lebanese have no right to capture soldiers of Israel inside military installations with sentries and combat posts. This is called, "Kidnapping of defenseless people."

5) Israel has the right to kidnap anytime and anywhere as many Lebanese and Palestinians as they want. Currently there are more than 10 thousand, 300 of whom are children and a thousand are women. No proof of guilt is needed. Israel has the right to keep kidnapped prisoners indefinitely, even if they are authorities democratically elected by the Palestinians. This is called "terrorist prisoners."

6) When the word Hezbollah is mentioned, it is compulsory in the same sentence to contain the words "supported and financed by Syria and by Iran."

7) When you mention "Israel" it is forbidden to make any mention of the words "supported and financed by the U.S." This may give the impression that the conflict is uneven and that Israel's existence is not in danger.

8) When referring to Israel, expressions that are prohibited: "Occupied Territories," "Violations of UN resolutions," "Violations of human rights" or "Geneva Convention."

9) Both the Palestinians and the Lebanese are always "cowardly," they are hidden among the civilian population, which does not want them. If they sleep in their homes, with their families, that gives them the name of "cowards." Israel has a right to destroy with bombs and missiles the neighborhoods where they are sleeping. This is called a "precision surgical action."

10) The Israelis speak better English, French, Spanish or Portuguese than the Arabs. Therefore they and those who support them must be interviewed more and have more opportunities than the Arabs to explain the present Rules of the Editorial Staff (from 1 to 10) to the general public. That is called "journalistic neutrality."

11) All those who are not in accordance with the Rules of Writing above are "highly dangerous anti-Semitic terrorists."


Both sides of this conflict are equally bloodthirsty, equally horrible, equally monstrous. Let's stop pretending that one side is virtuous and other is not.

Because to believe that is to deny reality.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,170

27 Jan 2009, 7:44 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Red Cross representative:
Quote:
"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," [Peter] Herby [head of the International Committee of the Red Cross mines-arms unit] told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."


Please have your vision checked if you still missed this.
(Large type for the vision-impaired.)


No need to shout, old boy. The fact that the Red Cross at one time said that they saw no evidence of the illegal use of phosphorous doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Others, including doctors that treated the wounded, and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are saying that white phosphorous was used, and that it killed civilians.

Quote:
Yesterday the military said it would launch an internal investigation. Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper reported yesterday that the Israeli military had now admitted using phosphorus munitions, but only in open areas.

Abu Shabaan, who was trained in Egypt, Britain and the United States and has been head of the Shifa burns unit for 15 years, said he and his staff had been stunned by the "unusual wounds" they found.

"It starts with small patches and in hours it becomes wide and deep and in some cases it reaches the point where even the general condition of the patient deteriorates rapidly and unexpectedly," he said.

Doctors had noticed a "very bad odour from the wound," he said. In many cases patients also suffered unexpected and severe toxicity, and had to be rushed into intensive care. In one case, a consultant anaesthetist suffered minor burns on his chest after burning material sprayed from within a patient's wounds during an ­operation.

Small burns were causing death. "A patient with 15% burns should not die, but we are seeing cases with 15% burns where they are dying," Abu Shabaan said. He believed, based on what he had read and what foreign doctors helping at the hospital had told him, that the wounds were consistent with phosphorus.

He described one patient, a three-year-old girl, who was sent for a scan because of a head wound: "After about two hours she came back, we opened the wound, and smoke came out from the wound," he said. Surgeons used forceps to pull out a substance from the wound that was "like dense cotton and it started to burn," he said. "The piece continued to burn until it disappeared." The child, who was from Atatra, in Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza, died.

In the Shifa burns unit yesterday, Sabbah Abu Halima described how her house, also in Atatra, had been hit early in the war by several shells which killed her husband, Sa'ad Allah, and four of their children: Abdul Rahim, 14, Zayid, 10, Hamza, eight, and Shahed, who was 15 months old. She herself suffered severe burns to her right arm, abdomen, left leg and her feet, burns which doctors said appeared to be consistent with white phosphorus.

There were 16 members of the family in the house when an Israeli shell landed outside, close to a bedroom. Sa'ad Allah gathered his four children around him and they ran to another part of the house. A second shell then hit their living room, killing Sa'ad Allah and the three boys immediately. Another shell then landed, knocking Sabbah to the ground. "I fell on the ground and there was a fire. The room was full of smoke and it smelt very bad. Three times I heard my daughter say 'Mama, mama, mama', but I couldn't see her," she said. The infant daughter, Shahed, collapsed and died.



Funny how the surgical strike with a 'smoke grenade' killed so many people and also set fire to the entire United Nations relief supplies warehouse.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2009, 9:37 am

monty wrote:
Funny how the surgical strike with a 'smoke grenade' killed so many people and also set fire to the entire United Nations relief supplies warehouse.


God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

Or perhaps the Israelis got wind that Hamas is being supplied under U.N. cover. Is it possible?

ruveyn