RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention

RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 7:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Not a war crime ? What it's not a war crime if you do it to a non-signatory ? what is this, like playing a game ? I mean that those who are not recognized as players are fair game ? Bring it on, this I want to hear. Hang on one second while I grab munchies and a beverage, because it is going to take a hell of alot of time to explain that one. Yes Termy. If a non-signatory group or country are not following the provisions in the Geneva Conventions as though they were a signatory country, than a signatory country is not required to abide by them. While the country may receive a "FAIL" in the court of public opinion they are not violating International Law. I think that the term you all are looking for is "Assholish Reprisals," on the part of Israel in some of these case. Dickish to be sure, but not a war crime.

tweakabelle -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 1:31:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Not a war crime ? What it's not a war crime if you do it to a non-signatory ? what is this, like playing a game ? I mean that those who are not recognized as players are fair game ? Bring it on, this I want to hear. Hang on one second while I grab munchies and a beverage, because it is going to take a hell of alot of time to explain that one. Yes Termy. If a non-signatory group or country are not following the provisions in the Geneva Conventions as though they were a signatory country, than a signatory country is not required to abide by them. While the country may receive a "FAIL" in the court of public opinion they are not violating International Law. I think that the term you all are looking for is "Assholish Reprisals," on the part of Israel in some of these case. Dickish to be sure, but not a war crime. THe Goldstone Report found that" "The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Accusations_of_war_crimes_on_the_part_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces The prosecution and conviction of the 2 soldiers in the Gaza human shield case incident arose initially out of the Goldstone Report (thereby confirming at least one of Goldstone's findings). Obviously, neither the UN, the Israeli Govt, its courts nor the 2 soldiers' attorneys share your confidence in this legal technicality defence. Otherwise the conviction wouldn't have happened - the soldiers would (a) never have been prosecuted or (b)presented this defence and been acquitted. It didn't happen. The 2 soldiers were convicted of a WAR CRIME in Gaza against a Palestinian. While Assholish Reprisals captures a certain aspect of this defence, let's call it for what it is - the "Israel can do whatever it likes and f* you, f* the world, f* international law and f* the Geneva Conventions" defence". A moment's thought and one can see it possibly being used to justify any atrocity. Is that what Israel is about? Has it really sunk that low? It really raises a question of whether there is anything worth saving, anything of integrity left in Israel doesn't it? Fortunately the defence is invalid, therefore the answer to my last question is no. But do you need any more graphic example of what happens when a nation is so brutalised it has completely lost its moral compass?

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 1:35:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead When did I say otherwise? I just pointed out that hertz seems to be holding Israel to a rather higher standard than any of the Palestinian organisations. Do I? When did I do that, then?

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 1:38:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You've missed nothing: hertz has just been arguing with statements that nobody has actually made. Have I really? Where did I do that, then?

Moonhead -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 1:40:48 PM)
Whenever you mention them, really.

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 1:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Whenever you mention them, really. Oh, right. You were making an unjustified claim. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Anaxagoras -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/26/2010 1:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle THe Goldstone Report found that" "The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Accusations_of_war_crimes_on_the_part_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces The prosecution and conviction of the 2 soldiers in the Gaza human shield case incident arose initially out of the Goldstone Report (thereby confirming at least one of Goldstone's findings). Obviously, neither the UN, the Israeli Govt, its courts nor the 2 soldiers' attorneys share your confidence in this legal technicality defence. Otherwise the conviction wouldn't have happened - the soldiers would (a) never have been prosecuted or (b)presented this defence and been acquitted. It didn't happen. The 2 soldiers were convicted of a WAR CRIME in Gaza against a Palestinian. While Assholish Reprisals captures a certain aspect of this defence, let's call it for what it is - the "Israel can do whatever it likes and f* you, f* the world, f* international law and f* the Geneva Conventions" defence". A moment's thought and one can see it possibly being used to justify any atrocity. Is that what Israel is about? Has it really sunk that low? It really raises a question of whether there is anything worth saving, anything of integrity left in Israel doesn't it? Fortunately the defence is invalid, therefore the answer to my last question is no. But do you need any more graphic example of what happens when a nation is so brutalised it has completely lost its moral compass? The Goldstone Report was correct about this issue but it published any allegation without any real screening so some of its 500 pages of accusations would inevitably have been correct. The fact remains however that the majority of the report was crap designed to harm Israel's rep further and push it into a difficult situation legally. Three of its four members had strongly condemned Israel in the past, let Hamas lead them around by the nose in Gaza and even conducted interviews in a public forum so that any criticism of Hamas by the people of Gaza could not occur. The resolution initiating the report asserted there had been Israeli war crimes (no mention of Hamas). Its wording was changed formally at the instigation of Goldstone which was a nonsense as the original wording of the resolution was passed at the final stage of the process. To show the level of bias in the Golstone Report it should be noted that they accepted unreservedly that 4/5 of 1400 Gazan victims were civilians. This was the central thesis of the report and their justification for saying Israel’s response was excess and possibly a war crime. It is also accepted without question by pro-Palestinians. However, Israel said 709 of the 1152 people killed were combatants, and another hundred were unknown and the rest were civilians. People dismissed that as propaganda but a senior Hamas official (Fathi Hamad, the Hamas administration’s interior minister) said recently that 700 of their operatives were killed and the detailed Israeli description of casualties was corroborated in other respects http://www.crethiplethi.com/hamas-minister-700-hamas-militants-were-killed-during-operation-cast-lead/israel/2010/ proving that Israel told the truth all along! As the article says though, its too late as Israeli’s rep over the war has been severely damaged by propaganda.

MasterNJ20 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 7:31:39 AM)
Even if the Goldstein report was telling the truth about the 4 civilians for every 1 solider.. israel would still be doing a far cry better than most western countries. The average in the 1900's being 10 civilians per soldier, in 1990 being 8 civilians per soldiers. And NATO scoring a 4 civilians per soldier during urban warfare in serbia. 4/5 of NATO's targets are civilians. Let's abolish NATO! And Every European nation, the USA, and every other country that has had warfare since 1900. I believe one of the lowest kill ratios is 2 civilians per 1 soldier, which is the US war in Afghanistan, though that figure may be old. Israel has less than 1 civilian killed per solider killed according to Hamas. Indiscriminate fire cannot be a valid charge against Israel. White phosphorous was used against the will of commanding officers since it was meant as a smoke screen. Those who fired the shells should be charged...those who used human shields should be charged, but Israel policy provided lower kill ratios than most modern first world countries and therefore it is hard to argue they are, as a whole, war criminals. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=3

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 9:02:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterNJ20 Even if the Goldstein report was telling the truth about the 4 civilians for every 1 solider.. israel would still be doing a far cry better than most western countries. The average in the 1900's being 10 civilians per soldier, in 1990 being 8 civilians per soldiers. And NATO scoring a 4 civilians per soldier during urban warfare in serbia. 4/5 of NATO's targets are civilians. Let's abolish NATO! And Every European nation, the USA, and every other country that has had warfare since 1900. I believe one of the lowest kill ratios is 2 civilians per 1 soldier, which is the US war in Afghanistan, though that figure may be old. Israel has less than 1 civilian killed per solider killed according to Hamas. Indiscriminate fire cannot be a valid charge against Israel. White phosphorous was used against the will of commanding officers since it was meant as a smoke screen. Those who fired the shells should be charged...those who used human shields should be charged, but Israel policy provided lower kill ratios than most modern first world countries and therefore it is hard to argue they are, as a whole, war criminals. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=3 The question is not whether or not the Israelis have killed a greater or lower ratio of civilians to legitimate targets when compared to other conflicts in the last 100 years. The question is whether or not the Israelis deliberately targeted civilians. The Goldstone report provided evidence that they did. The civilian kill ratio is not sufficient evidence that they did not. The truth is, Palestinian civilians are always the target of Israeli aggression, both during times of war, but also during times when large scale military action is not occurring.

MasterNJ20 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 2:04:05 PM)
You must be joking. If NATO manages to accidentally shoot 4 civilians per 1 militant.... And we accept Hamas' number of 700 militants out of 1200 total (rounding) Israel should be getting 2800 dead civilians to 700 militants BY ACCIDENT..and you want me to believe that the fact they fell short of the 4:1 kill ratio does not show STRONG CORRELATION that they were not targeting civilians. This means that not only would they have to be able to only accidentally shoot 5 for every 7 soldiers (a far cry better than most modern army), but that they would have had to shoot 5:7 ratio accidentally, minus the civilians they killed on purpose. We are now talking about a kill ratio of 2 soldiers per civilian shot as the random accidentally shooting, plus the purposeful ones. This is an UNHEARD of ratio in modern major military operations. The statistical unlikelihood of this being true, alone, should make people question whether or not they targeted civilians. We should now include the fact Hamas has been criticized by the Human Rights Watch for using human shields. Admission of Palestinians used as human shields: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y&feature=related The fact there were human shields, rockets fired from schools and mosques, etc... all coupled with an incredibly low kill ratio means that it would be next to impossible for Israel to have purposefully targeted civilians and still maintained a less than 1 civilian per 1 solider killed. I feel these 2 soldier who got no jail time either were fucking with the boy which should be made clear by Israel then, or deserve jail time. The soldier who used phosphorous shells deserve demotion or expulsion from the military if no civilians were killed, or worse if there were. But these are not systemic issues. How about these numbers, so that we aren't only looking at cast lead, since the year 2000 about 1000 Israelis were killed, 700 of them civilians. That is a 7 civilians to 3 soldiers kill ratio. about 6000 Palestinians were killed. About 2000 confirmed soldiers. 2 civilians per 1 soldier. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=189392 Israel is killing civilians at a rate most modern armies would do so accidentally at. The Palestinians are killing Israeli civilians at a much higher ratio. Palestine is the side that should be under the gun for targeting civilians, including recent white phosphorous rockets shot into a Israeli village. http://thelastamazon.blogspot.com/2009/01/hamas-white-phosphorus-rain-into-israel.html

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 2:48:27 PM)
Your logic is flawed. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the position for effect? Firstly, by restricting your numbers to 'kills only', it might be said that you are understating the true number of civilians targeted by Israel by a significant factor. It isn't necessary for a child to die for that child to be targeted by a bastard in a uniform. The number of Palestinians injured in the attack stands at over 5000, of which 1600 were children and 800 were women. These numbers are not going to be accurate, but they do give a more sensible picture of the indiscriminate nature of the Israeli attack. How many of these 5000 were deliberately targeted? Who knows? Secondly, in your counting of 'militants' as legitimate targets, you are making the assumption that every militant was involved in action against Israel. Your claim appears to be that all members of Hamas are actively involved in war against Israel, and therefore all are legitimate targets. It would be interesting to see your figures further broken down to distinguish between non-military Hamas deaths and active participants. Basic point - I don't think the killing of Policemen can be defended, even if they are members of Hamas. Amnesty apparently concluded that 'that an overall figure of some 1,400 fatalities is accurate and that, in addition to some 300 children, 115 women and 85 men aged over 50, some 200 men aged less than 50 were unarmed civilians who took no part in the hostilities'. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_07_09_gaza_report.pdf) This point brings your kill ratio under question. Thirdly, you ignore the deliberate destruction of civilian properties - particularly factories and other plant essential to economic activity. The destruction of Gaza infrastructure is as much a targeted attack on civilians as the attack on the twin towers was an attack on civilians. Fourthly, you keep harking on at the kill ratio between civilians and legitimate targets as if that says something about the Israelis deliberately targeting civilians. It doesn't. All the ratio tells you is that members of one group were killed in greater numbers than another group. This ratio says nothing at all about the reason those people were killed, or how they died. Regardless of the ratio, it is a fact that civilians were targeted. Israel killed civilians at an alarming rate during their military attack on Gaza. They continue to kill civilians every day by waging an economic war on the Gaza strip.

MasterNJ20 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 4:52:57 PM)
Response to your first point: Many civilians were injured during the destruction of military operations within civilian compounds such as schools. When you fire a rocket at an arms warehouse with civilians inside of the arms warehouse, it is inevitable that they will be injured. The Human Rights Watch has stated that it is within the rules of war for Israel to attack the target and all injuries are the fault of those using the human shields. Second point, I have gotten my Cast Lead numbers from HAMAS. See Anaxagoras' earlier post. Third, much of the destruction of civilian property is military related. Factories which are believed to be making weapons, homes which are being used as safe houses, war rooms, or military storage space. There is room for abuse in this system and it may exist, however due to use of civilian property for military function it is hard to fault Israel for all destruction of purely civilian property. I agree those who abuse the system on purpose should be punished but I do not believe this is systemic. Fourth is closely related to second. Hamas said many militants were killed. If a US soldier gets killed by an Iraqi on US soil, I would personally find it hard to cry foul. I find this situation the same. A militant in the army against Israel is a soldier against Israel even if on another mission at the time. Israel does not know Hamas' real time orders, and as long as soldiers of the opposing army were killed the fact they may have been drinking tea and eating crumpets should be ignored. As for the purposeful targeting of civilians, in terms of live fire targeting this remains difficult to argue. Injuries would seem to suggest an attempt to disperse or simply a proximity to a target. If Israel targets someone they tend to die. The kill ratio says Israel kills fewer civilians than other nations do. This means that they need to A) Be more careful than other nations in terms of who they kill and then B) Target civilians anyway. This makes little sense. Possible, yes. Probable, no. It seems to suggest Israel is correct in its statements that the schools and mosques it bombs are military operations when more soldiers are killed in those bombings than civilians. Again, see the new Hamas numbers to confirm more soldiers were indeed killed. Your last line is a farce. Israel did not kill civilians at an alarming rate, in fact they killed them at a slower rate than most first world nations. Even if they targeted them, they still killed them slower on purpose than other nations kill civilians by accident. Taking that stand point makes no sense! The economic war waged may be hindering infrastructure, but there is little humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Oh my god! see the people starving in Gaza. people dying in the streets. Well, maybe, but there's enough food and luxury to go around assuming Hamas is nice enough to share, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxaDmAyt84g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37GHxeRqGA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPyNaCdjXSY&feature=related

Anaxagoras -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 5:39:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Firstly, by restricting your numbers to 'kills only', it might be said that you are understating the true number of civilians targeted by Israel by a significant factor. It isn't necessary for a child to die for that child to be targeted by a bastard in a uniform. The number of Palestinians injured in the attack stands at over 5000, of which 1600 were children and 800 were women. These numbers are not going to be accurate, but they do give a more sensible picture of the indiscriminate nature of the Israeli attack. How many of these 5000 were deliberately targeted? Who knows? quote: ORIGINAL: MasterNJ20 The kill ratio says Israel kills fewer civilians than other nations do. This means that they need to A) Be more careful than other nations in terms of who they kill and then B) Target civilians anyway. This makes little sense. Possible, yes. Probable, no. It seems to suggest Israel is correct in its statements that the schools and mosques it bombs are military operations when more soldiers are killed in those bombings than civilians. Again, see the new Hamas numbers to confirm more soldiers were indeed killed. Your last line is a farce. Israel did not kill civilians at an alarming rate, in fact they killed them at a slower rate than most first world nations. Even if they targeted them, they still killed them slower on purpose than other nations kill civilians by accident. Taking that stand point makes no sense! Hertz and others on here have asserted that Israel is butchering people on a continual basis. They have asserted on other threads that the killing is indiscriminate. Now he is attempting to be creative by saying oh the kill rate doesn’t really measure it, it is really the rate of injuries. It is hard enough to measure kill rates and identify combatants from civilians. The entire pro-Palestinian argument focuses on kills only, for the simple reason that that is the only meaningful measure. It would be next to impossible to measure those injured and then dissect into combatant and civilian lists because far larger numbers are involved and it is far less meaningful as injuries can be for all manner of reasons in conflict zones that have nothing to do with targeting. Historians never talk about how many were injured in World War Two etc. For Hertz to say the civilian-combatant ratio would not reflect targeting is pretty sickening. The game with the death toll was used from the start. Hamas said 300 children were killed into the first week of the conflict, which was impossible as it only rose to 84 more by the conflict’s end according to their data. Palestinians are well known for exaggerating death tolls but the BBC et al accepted it uncritically. Now that Hamas inadvertently uprooted the entire pro-Palestinian stance on the Gaza war which in essence focused on death tolls, people like Hertz are reaching for anything else to bash Israel with. However, I hope others see this as an utter absurdity. If the Israeli’s deliberately targeted civilians they would have been slaughtered at an exponentially higher rate than combatants. They would at the very least be killing at largely the same rate as other armies. In Hamas bringing the battle to densely populated areas, it is nothing short of a genuine feat that the civilian death toll was roughly 1/2 of the combatant one. I don’t think that has been matched anywhere else as Colonel Richard Kemp has said on many occasions. It takes massive effort to minimise civilian casualties which is why other armies don’t do it but Israel does. However, instead of this being seen as a positive development pro-Palestinian groups, NGO’s, the UN etc. simply lied through their teeth.

Aneirin -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/27/2010 7:45:18 PM)
It always strikes me as interesting in those who do not join in the conversations. This is a worldwide forum, so I ask, is the common tongue that hard, or is it others, them in the big wide world don''t want to comment on what foreigners think they know best.

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/28/2010 5:50:29 AM)
Suggesting that it is not required that a person be killed in order for them to have been deliberately targeted is not 'creativity'. It is a simple, bloody obvious observation. The figures Hamas provided speak of members of Hamas. This includes Policemen, who are not engaged in military action. Some of the destruction of property and infrastructure was related to attacks on Hamas military operations. Much of the destruction caused was deliberate destructiveness with the aim of collectively punishing the people of Gaza. The kill ratio, military to civilian, does not indicate that civilians were not targeted. I still find it hard to believe that such a dumb-ass argument can be peddled here with a straight face. The kill ratio does indicate that the Gaza attack was not Genocide - if it were, then yes, many more of the dead would be civilians and there would indeed be many more dead. However, whatever the number, whatever the ratio, it is very clear that civilians may have been targeted. The numbers say nothing about motivation or cause, but merely that there were deaths. This is really fucking obvious and really simple. I can't believe some of you can't tell the difference between a quantitative statement and a statement of intent. There are many, many reports which show quite clearly that civilians were targeted by Israeli forces. The Amnesty International report (link in previous post) would be worth a look. But of course, ultimately it all comes down to everyone lying about Israel 'because of the anti-Semitism'. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras pro-Palestinian groups, NGO’s, the UN etc. simply lied through their teeth. Of course they did. Everyone hates the Jews, don't they?

toyboyNJ -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/28/2010 6:37:56 AM)
Your amnesty international post is from 2009 buying into the bullshit that 2/3 of those killed were civilians. Again citing that most military operations would be working with a 1:3 accidental kill ration as a good thing. In fact if you bothered to read the article about Hamas' numbers they cited 250 of their militants and 200-300 other faction militants were killed. thats 450-550 militants. They then said that 150 of those killed were "security personnel". Your amnesty international report says some "security personnel" were armed militants, and the article posted about the Hamas casualties stated that the security force is an integral part of the military operations, making them military targets. That is 700 legitimate kills. Your amnesty international report goes on to say that human shields were not used by either side. The human rights watch criticized Hamas for firing from civilian buildings. So Israel does not use human shields. Hamas does not use human shields. Hamas fires rockets from civilian buildings. And 700 of 1100 minimum and 1400 maximum deaths were military targets. In fact your amnesty international report quotes an Israeli commander saying to fire on houses if they believe there to be militants inside. I believe this does not say to target civilians, but rather to not hesitate on firing at civilian targets if they are being used for military operations. And by looking at the numbers the quote used by amnesty to show civilian targeting "let the mistakes be over their body not ours" seem to suggest the mistakes made were few and far between compared to modern armies. Amnesty was also quick to point out how Israel is so evil, targeting anyone at all in Hamas....who is associated with the militant arm or provides human resources to them. Oh wait, yea...

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/28/2010 7:06:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toyboyNJ Your amnesty international post is from 2009 buying into the bullshit that 2/3 of those killed were civilians. Again citing that most military operations would be working with a 1:3 accidental kill ration as a good thing. The figures only look like bullshit to you because you are making them up as you go along. I don't know whether you are just being careless with the truth or deliberately lying. Which is it? quote: In fact if you bothered to read the article about Hamas' numbers they cited 250 of their militants and 200-300 other faction militants were killed. thats 450-550 militants. They then said that 150 of those killed were "security personnel". Your amnesty international report says some "security personnel" were armed militants, and the article posted about the Hamas casualties stated that the security force is an integral part of the military operations, making them military targets. That is 700 legitimate kills. Making stuff up isn't really the same as reporting what was actually said, is it? Or at least, it isn't where I come from. You might have much lower standards, I guess. Here's a report from Haaretz: quote: In an interview with the London-based Al-Hayat daily last Monday, however, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad detailed the heavy price his group had paid during the war. "They say that it was the people who were harmed in the last war," said Hamad. "Are we not part of the people nation? On the first day of the war, Israel attacked the police command and killed 250 martyrs, from Hamas and other factions." "This was in addition to the 200-300 members of the Al-Qassam Brigade [Hamas' military wing] and 150 security personnel," Hamad added. "The rest of the fatalities were from among the civilian population."Haaretz Now it might be my imagination, but it looks to me that what Fathi Hamad is saying here is that 250 Policemen were killed, 250-300 members of their military wing Al-Qassam were killed, and 150 security personnel. I'm looking for the word 'militant' and I don't see it. Maybe this report is wrong? Or you are deliberately lying in the hope that no-one will bother to challenge your lies. I wonder which it is? I can find no evidence that the Amnest report says anything like what you claim it says. Another deliberate lie? quote: Your amnesty international report goes on to say that human shields were not used by either side. The human rights watch criticized Hamas for firing from civilian buildings. I don't think you have the faintest fucking idea what you are talking about. That, or it's another outrageous lie. Are you a liar? Are you hoping no-one will bother to check? The report expressly states that Palestinians were used as human shields by the IDF. Can you read at all? Try reading page 48 to 50. Seriously toyboy, if you are going to tell lies then you need to cover your ass a bit better than you have done here. Making stuff up is all well and good if there is no way for anyone to check on your lies. In this case, it has been all too easy to show you up for what you are. Please, do not tell lies about what is in the news.

Anaxagoras -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/28/2010 3:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Suggesting that it is not required that a person be killed in order for them to have been deliberately targeted is not 'creativity'. It is a simple, bloody obvious observation. You are misrepresenting both what was said and my response. Of course not every single person who is targeted is killed. The point that myself and NJ20 have made is that the proportion of killings would reflect the proportion of targeting. That is an obvious point and it is a sheer absurdity to challenge it. quote: The figures Hamas provided speak of members of Hamas. This includes Policemen, who are not engaged in military action. The police that were killed were members of Hamas, many of which were in their brigades. That is why the article asserted “In the interview Fathi Hamad admitted that on the first day of the war, when Israel struck Hamas police headquarters, 250 casualties belonged to Hamas and the other terrorist organizations. That is consistent with Israeli information that Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives also served in the police force and the other internal security forces of the de facto Hamas administration, both before and during Operation Cast Lead.” Thus they were clearly legitimate targets and Hamad himself refers to them as Hamas distinct to civilians and other security personnel. quote: Some of the destruction of property and infrastructure was related to attacks on Hamas military operations. Much of the destruction caused was deliberate destructiveness with the aim of collectively punishing the people of Gaza. A lot of infrastructure was destroyed true but as NJ20 stated, it is well known that Hamas were functioning in civilian facilities. They were even using hospitals and mosques. Israel has a moral responsibility not to harm civilians. That is their principal responsibility with regard to their civilian enemies. The fact remains that they discharged that duty with impressive results, better than any other country in the world. Clearly that doesn’t suit Hertz who wants to portray them as genocidists but the figures do not lie. Israel did not lie. Hamas lied until now, pro-Palestinians lied, the UN lied, and yes your precious Amnesty lied. In their report issued shortly after the Gaza war, they did not even consult Israel on military objectives which are typically need to determine if war crimes occurred. quote: The kill ratio, military to civilian, does not indicate that civilians were not targeted. I still find it hard to believe that such a dumb-ass argument can be peddled here with a straight face. The kill ratio does indicate that the Gaza attack was not Genocide - if it were, then yes, many more of the dead would be civilians and there would indeed be many more dead. However, whatever the number, whatever the ratio, it is very clear that civilians may have been targeted. The numbers say nothing about motivation or cause, but merely that there were deaths. This is really fucking obvious and really simple. I can't believe some of you can't tell the difference between a quantitative statement and a statement of intent. There are many, many reports which show quite clearly that civilians were targeted by Israeli forces. The reports by the UN and Amnesty accepted without question the position of Hamas at the time whilst rejecting Israel's account. if something as fundamental as the death toll was accepted without question then the data in those reports is hughly questionable. Again you are misrepresenting the issue to make yourself look reasonable. It was not asserted that never, never, ever were any civilians targeted by individual troops. What the figures do prove is that it was not systemic because if it was then Israel simply could not have the lowest civilian to combatant kill ratio in the world by a long margin, unless you want to assert that the Israeli’s have an even better civilian to combatant kill ratio but are killing loads of civilians on the sly. It is possible some civilians were targeted by individual troops but it is simply twisted in extremis to suggest the army that takes the most care with avoiding civilian casulties in the world still deliberately kills them as policy. Saying “I can't believe some of you can't tell the difference between a quantitative statement and a statement of intent.” speaks volumes about the desperation of loosing an argument lol. There are no statements. The numbers in themselves say spades about motivation – again myself and others said it takes great effort and planning to minimise casualties to such a dramatic extent. Thus the numbers do indeed indicate the motivation of the IDF. Otherwise the toll would be closer 2,800 civilians vs. 700 Hamas. Saying “This is really fucking obvious and really simple” won’t blind others to the stupidity of your arguments. quote: But of course, ultimately it all comes down to everyone lying about Israel 'because of the anti-Semitism'. Of course they did. Everyone hates the Jews, don't they? Whether it suits you to accept it or not, anti-Semitism is a prime motivating factor in this situation just as it is a motivating factor in the increased attacks on Jews and Jewish buildings during times of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as a three-fold increase in the UK during the Gaza war. One example that sticks in my mind is a swastika cut on the ground of a Jewish primary school. These people had no connection with Israel so there is a direct link between pro-Palestinianism and anti-Semitism. Of course it is not the only reason to criticise Israel but with so much of it is illegitimate, it is a definite factor. quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Now it might be my imagination, but it looks to me that what Fathi Hamad is saying here is that 250 Policemen were killed, 250-300 members of their military wing Al-Qassam were killed, and 150 security personnel. I'm looking for the word 'militant' and I don't see it. Maybe this report is wrong? Or you are deliberately lying in the hope that no-one will bother to challenge your lies. I wonder which it is? I can find no evidence that the Amnest report says anything like what you claim it says. Another deliberate lie? I don't think you have the faintest fucking idea what you are talking about. That, or it's another outrageous lie. Are you a liar? Are you hoping no-one will bother to check? The report expressly states that Palestinians were used as human shields by the IDF. Can you read at all? Try reading page 48 to 50. Seriously toyboy, if you are going to tell lies then you need to cover your ass a bit better than you have done here. Making stuff up is all well and good if there is no way for anyone to check on your lies. In this case, it has been all too easy to show you up for what you are. Please, do not tell lies about what is in the news. This is Hertz going into a meltdown lol by throwing out accusations and abuse left right and centre. When it comes to "lies" its the pot calling the kettle black as previous posts attest. If you sincerely believe you are just motivated by altruistic reasons then it is time to examine your conscience and ask why you are still trying to misrepresent the truth.

tweakabelle -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/28/2010 5:14:30 PM)
quote: MasterNJ20 White phosphorous was used against the will of commanding officers since it was meant as a smoke screen. Those who fired the shells should be charged...those who used human shields should be charged, but Israel policy provided lower kill ratios than most modern first world countries and therefore it is hard to argue they are, as a whole, war criminals. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=3 Please excuse me if i dont get into the kill ratio discussion for the time being. I find the whole discussion gruesome. Rather i would like to express my appreciation to MasterNJ20 for his agreement that those who fired white phosphorous and used human shields should be charged and tried. Thus far in this thread, the following Israeli war crimes have been discussed and there seems to be limited consensus about their veracity. 1. White phosphorous: Used in Lebanon 1982, 2006 and Gaza (Operation cast lead) 2. Cluster bombs: Used in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 3. Human shields: multiple instances in Gaza and West Bank This tells me that Israel/IDF has committed war crimes in every external theatre of operation consistently since the early 80s. To date, there has been ONE trial resulting in conviction of 2 low ranking IDF soldiers and a "slap on the wrist' sentence. I invite you to draw conclusions on the above especially addressing the following questions: Does Israel and the IDF use weapons and practices outlawed by international law as a matter of policy? Is there any evidence to show the IDF or the Israeli State punishing those responsible meaningfully? Is there a culture of impunity within the IDF regarding war crimes? If Israel continues to refuse to take action against those responsible for these violations, should the matters be referred to the International Courts? Please feel free to post a corresponding series of questions on the "Israel and Propaganda" thread re the Palestinians. I can assure you now that, if one replaces "Israel" with "the Palestinians" and "IDF" with "Hamas/Hezbollah" in the above questions, then my responses will be "yes", (except for the second question which is a "no")

luckydawg -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/28/2010 5:16:43 PM)
Hertz clearly has no idea what "targeting" means. It Does NOT mean hitting. There is absolutly no evidence of Isreal targetting Palestinian Civilians (except for paid, weopon carrying members of Hamas, Which Hertz wants to call civillians). Hertz is clearly an Anti semite and motivated by HATE. now the 250 Hamas security forces are defined as Martyrs. Martys are active fighters. Martyrs are NOT civilians. The Anti Semites can lie and pretend otherwise, but it is a fact. Martyrs are fighters and Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad defines them as such. Martyrs. Fighters. Not civilians. Now anti semites are generally rather stupid, so it makes sense that Hertz can not grasp that, 250 +300+ 150=700. Those are Hamas given numbers. Hertz lies because of HATE.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625