Typing errors are a norm for online discussions, plus English is my 3rd language so I’m not terribly surprised at your response. It is clear for some time now that you will hang on to anything to deflect the point or, pretend there is no point made. Mutual understanding requires attention but most of all, willingness to understand. So, please, read above again by skipping only one word (both, bolded and underlined). Also, please note that it was a response to your attempt to negate or ridicule list of facts related to President Carter’s book.
In case you missed it, point is that if the world of ME conflict is explained to the average American (and I believe, it is) the way you are trying to convey it here, then no one should be surprised if the conclusion of the same average American is in line with “Palestinians are just being selfish pricks”. Those of more ignorant attitudes and easily impressed by the sight of modern weaponry being used to flatten the houses would then add, “fuck them… fire away!”.
“Fire away” as in “don’t stop the destruction and murder just because couple of hundred civilians are in and around the area”.
It would be fair, to say the least, if you would acknowledge a remote possibility of such a scenario. Of course, if this time my grammar nears at least 10% of the perfection requirements to be even considered.
I thought you had another level of meaning in there by specifically citing Noam. He gets a bit Sevastapol on things. Plus, of course, his writing is a bit… well, while that’s an example sentence, I always felt that it stood as a good exemplar of his writing with meaning, as well.
Ahhh, now I grok. Yeah… when it comes to politics, Noam likes to make stuff up and has a fingernail’s grasp on reality, when he’s lucky. I’d just used the linguistics tidbit to point out that newcomer was making no sense, but you’re right, I should’ve been more aware of the secondary associations.
Neither. I debunked non-facts that were masquerading as truth. It’s interesting that even now, you’re unable to engage with what actually went on and are busy creating this silly distortion. It’s also interesting that rather than even attempt to engage in a debate on the facts, or the merits of your claims, you went right for an absurd strawman.
Speaking of which:
Nonsense. Not only have I not described it in any such manner, I’ve been quite clear on this board as to what I think a negotiated settlement should ideally look like. Just because I don’t allow nonsense to substitute for facts doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up about my position.
Yet again, international law is against you. Obviously then, it’s not “murder”.
Equally obvious, as Hamas uses human shields, your position is functionally equivalent to a demand that Israel simply allow itself to be attacked with rockets until Hamas decides, on their own, to stop. Not only is that not in keeping with international law, but you’re denying Israel the right of self defense that every other nation on the face of the Earth has.
I think you mistake my position in that I believe the Israelis should surrender their land. In fact, I believe nothing of the sort. I’m simply being pragmatic about the situation. No one thinks that Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza will do much to permanently stop the firing of rockets from the Gazan side. Given daily attacks and lack of options dealing with it, any smart and sensible Israeli would simply move further away from the borders.
Note that I make no arguments that Israelis should lessen the claim to that land, but seriously, if you’re being fired on for years and theres no solution in the future that you can see, then you get the fuck out of there
Of course! Obviously, the path to peace is to put Hamas within rocket range of Tel Aviv and allow them open borders to import Iranian weaponry. It obviously isn’t for the PA to accept and enforce, say, the Bridging Proposal.
I’m also not sure where this claim of treating people like “human beings” comes from. The rules of occupation are quite clearly spelled out by the 4th Geneva Convention. Do you actually contend that it is about making people less than human?
What your friend Rune ‘forgot’ to mention is the clip he showed was a counter-demonstration to the rather large pro-Israel rally…I imagine if I saw people dancing and singing over what’s happening to the Palestinians in Gaza, I wouldn’t feel too kind either. BTW, I only saw one person making the Nazi salute – fuck mi, there’s no excuse for that.
And I quoted Ghandi because I value his opinions and all the man stood for. Apparently your pro-Israel buddy doesn’t think much of the man. Never mind the false claims he makes about Gandhi, but it’s apparently “fuck anyone” who doesn’t agree with Israelis on this issue.
Indeed, when it includes a senior American Senator openly declaring his support of this massacre – and the dancing and singing, again, something I find highly offensive under current circumstances.
Israel playing the ‘victim’ card doesn’t quite jive with me, never has. Tell us, where would you feel safer, in the Gaza Strip or in any part of Israel? And let’s not even mention Freedom…
As for what the IDF should do, best I can think of is undercover operations by any of its special forces, targeting individual terrorists. To give you but one example, I’d be livid if the Spanish Gov unleashed its Armed Forces against the Basque Country due to ETA’s actions. Collective punishment, you are either for it or against it. Count me on the latter side of the ledger.
Mother of mercy, you’re fucking serious.
Holy shit.
You’re actually puzzled at why a Jew would take offense at Gandhi’s desire for the Jews to have allowed the Nazis to butcher them. And damn those uppity kikes for objecting to being told that things would’ve been better off if European Jews had meekly submitted to the butcher’s knife.
You evidently think that there’s actually something wrong with Jews not wanting to walk into the gas chambers.
At least it makes the rest of your strange views somewhat clearer.
Those are some serious charges, one of them being that the Israeli government misrepresented a video. Would you mind quoting/citing/linking the Israeli government statement where they did that?
The Hamas strategy is a logical extension of suicide bombing. Hamas is chomping at the bit to butcher their own people, but they have difficulty getting their bomb-strapped children into Israel. The next best thing is to use civilians as “human shields” by gathering as many as possible, and then launching rockets into Israeli schools from the crowd. That way they get a chance to kill Israeli civilians, while also obtaining the Palestinian martyrs they desire.
It is so horrible that many people simply can’t stomach it and want to give in to Hamas or just blow up the whole region. These are exactly the type of responses Hamas is looking for.
I’m not sure we can afford to let such a strategy work. Painful as it is, Israel’s response may be the best for the sake of the world. If Hamas succeeds with this strategy, or if the strategy is even deemed valid, it will be repeated. The problem is that many people who are not currently targeted by this strategy are speaking in favor of it. In order to stop such a monstrous tactic, there needs to be more widespread agreement that it is not valid and will not be allowed to succeed. By supporting Hamas’ strategy, you are only ensuring the deaths the strategy requires.
Despite the immediate repulse that quoting Gandhi brings to more than one poster here, fact is Gandhi had a certain world-view as a philosopher, and the opinions he expressed were completely consistent with his philosophy.
Do I think it is too much to expect a certain philosophy to be applicable without change in every context? But of course not, thus I am also capable of discerning that what Gandhi proposed to Jews vis-a-vis Nazis, although once again, consistent with his world-view, would only have led to a greater Holocaust – if such can even be imaginable.
Do I personally agree with him on said actions? No, absolutely not. But then again, I am neither a follower of his teachings nor a pacifist.
Lastly the reason I offered his views on the Palestinian/Israeli matter, is because on that particular issue I agree with the man. And I’ll also add, having read his biography a time or two, that no, I certainly do not consider him an anti-Semite…in fact, he clearly says as much in the piece I quoted in the other thread – or was he a liar as well? BTW, some would do well in reading the letter that precedes Gandhi’s comments as well. It is written by an American Zionist.
Lastly, I would like to thank Mr Finn for his non-responsive post. Obviously not for the (lack of) content but for the implied promise he makes about any future debate between us.
So, about that White Phosphorus shell at UN headquarters?
It certainly looks like BS. Many of the assertions that antiwar.com makes are cited by other antiwar.com pages, whose essential assertions in turn either have ‘their post as their cite’ or cite other antiwar.com pages.
It’s interesting, as well, to note some of the external sources they do cite, like this article cited by the “white phosphorous” antiwar.com page. In it, one of the very first assertions made is that less than half of the casualties on the Palestinian side have been civilians. That’s awe inspiring, that a nation could conduct a war against an enemy that hides among civilians, and have better than a 1:1 ratio of terrorist to civilian casualties. It’s simply amazing, and should give pause to people who are so bombastic as to claim that a “massacre” is going on.
The claim that Israel “retroactively” provided justification for the strike near the UN school is also either a blatant lie or a totally idiosyncratic use of the word ‘retroactively’. Israel pretty much immediately said that it had fired on mortar positions which had been set up at the school. Israel, in fact quickly released a video response.
The reports that Israel admitted to not responding to fire from the compound and using old video evidently come from the UNRWA itself. But even that claim is that there were out of date photos, not youtube video. Other bloggers who picked up the story seem to have played Telephone with it, and I’ve found a few who referenced that Haaretz article as the source for the claim of a youtube video.
Myself, I’d take UN claims with a watermelon sized grain of salt.
As of yet, every link to the claim that the IDF admitted it hadn’t struck at mortars goes back to the UNRWA claims themselves. I’m curious why, all these days later, all the sites I’ve found refer to UNRWA claims, and not those of any other of the diplomats who must have been present, and/or the IDF itself.
Now, it may certainly turn out to be that due to the fog of war, Israeli shells landed outside the school in error. In which case it is a absolute tragedy. There may also have been confusion in the military hierarchy as to what the best, current intelligence stated about the attack. But as of yet I’ve seen no credible evidence that the UNRWA’s claims are accurate. I’m more than willing to retract that, but lacking confirmation from even one of the other members supposedly present at the briefing, my bullshit detector is redlining.
[QUOTE=RedFury;10698161
And I quoted Ghandi because I value his opinions and all the man stood for. Apparently your pro-Israel buddy [doesn’t think much of the man]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10685324&postcount=30). Never mind the false claims he makes about Gandhi, but it’s apparently “fuck anyone” who doesn’t agree with Israelis on this issue.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, I’m not pro-Israel, I’m Israeli.
Second of all, I don’t think Gandhi was an anti-semite. I think he was a great man who occassionally said some seriously stupid shit, and I reserve the right to call him out for it.
Rockets were fired by Hamas from next to the UN school’s courtyard.
The IDF planned on responding with a smart missile, but technical problems made that impossible.
So instead they used GPS guided mortar rounds, two of the three rounds hit their target perfectly and the third deviated by the expected possible margin of error.
Notice, no mention of video, youtube or otherwise.
So what’s the grand deception by the IDF? Initial reports stated that mortars were fired from the school’s courtyard. But instead, preliminary analysis states that rockets were fired from right next to the school’s courtyard. The grand “revision”, most likely due to the fog of war, IDF officials understood that the target was in instead of right next to the courtyard.
Dastardly deception!
I suppose this is surprising for people who don’t grok the fog of war. But it’s not particularly significant, as even Palestinian eye witnesses disagreed as to whether or not the school was hit by mortar or tank fire. Initial confusion as to whether fire came from the courtyard and counter battery fire hit the courtyard or fire came from right next to the courtyard and counter batter fire hit the courtyard is not exactly Earth shaking in significance.
So… use of WP is legal and common as a flare or smoke screen, and there is no specific evidence that it’s being targeted as a direct weapon against civilians. As a result, we can conclude it’s being used as a direct weapon against civilians.
Kneejerk successful.
It’s also worth noting that if WP was used in either the second or third scenario, 3 out of 700 people injured, and zero killed seems… low.
To put it mildly.
In order to serve as an effective AP weapon against targets inside a building it would need more than the burster charge. That would have meant HE in addition to fire damage, or a ‘shake and bake’ configuration. Even if the shells were fused for impact rather than airburst, then the secondary fires would have been able to have been put out, as only the primary fires are immune to water.
Additionally, initial report place the strike on the corner of the building. Which seems like an odd location for shells to hit, especially clustered together, if they were designed as AP rounds to kill the inhabitants of the building or AM rounds to destroy the building.
And before it’s mentioned, it’s worth noting that the ‘cluster bombs’ story is also most likely false.
So? Investigations can and should be carried out. We don’t have enough information to judge, at present. And the UN’s word, as always, is highly suspect. I’d hope that it isn’t too much to ask that we wait to see what the data says before we rush to judgment.
P.S. Since it’ll probably come up: Protocol III of theConvention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The actual prohibition is against attacking military targets located within a concentration of civilians. Not to use incendiaries for smoke cover in a civilian area.
It’s also worth pointing out that antiwar.com doesn’t exactly have the credibility required to float claims absent a primary source.
For instance from their “re-revised story” page: “Now, a preliminary investigation by the military says they were firing at some guys less than a yard outside of the school…”
Meanwhile… the cite they link to themselves says "A preliminary investigation into the fatal shooting by the Israel Defense Forces into a United Nations building in northern Gaza on Tuesday reveals the Israeli troops firing on the building missed their targets by some 30 meters. "
Rather obviously, 30 meters is not “less than a yard”.
If they can’t be counted on not to (to be charitable) accidentally get facts wrong when they paraphrase their own cites…