1200 killed, many more injured in Israeli attacks in Gaza

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:25 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:Marwan Barghouti's charges against the state of Israel might also be worthwhile reading.


A similar list of equally damning charges can be, and have been, brought against various factions of the PLO.

segmentation fault wrote:THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT THINGS.


We've been over this. What is the 'right' way? Disarmament? Giving more land to the Palestinians? You act as though none of this has been tried before, and failed, to the death of Israelis.

segmentation fault wrote:in addition, you really think palestine is the bully and not the country that receives billions of dollars in foreign aid as well as military equipment?


Palestinians receive, per capita, more humanitarian funding from around the world then any other people on the planet. When you describe Israel's foreign aid, you are referring to the ~3 billion USD it receives for military endeavor. You neglect to mention that the Palestinians are firing modern weapons at the Israeli's, modern weapons that are foreign supplied.

segmentation fault wrote:srael can probably kick the ass of any other middle eastern nation


Israel's war history is not devoid of it's own soldiers dying. Your claim is like saying the US kicked Germany's ass on D-day; keeping Israel alive has come at a heavy cost of soldiers lives.

segmentation fault wrote:i find it fitting that you equate the situation to childish schoolyard bullying. maybe someone should act like the grown up.


I absolutely agree! It's just that everytime a 'grown up' has stepped in, nothings come of it.

segmentation fault wrote:however if you keep bombing them, the palestinians will turn towards hamas at a pretty sharp rate, which if you hadnt noticed is whats happening.


I haven't seen anything about improved or fallen approval rating for Hamas. Can you link to any evidence of this?
It's easy to condemn war, it's a bit harder to be clear and concise in what exactly you are condemning. Just as you said,

segmentation fault wrote:being against the actions of israel, who does not reflect the views of all jewish people, is not anti-semitism. similarly, the views of hamas are not the views of all palestinians


It should be pointed out that Israeli government is composed of a number of parliamentary branches, a number of which, are vehemently anti-war. The PLO is also composed of a number of branches, however, Hamas is pretty explicit in it's intent. The actions of the IDF != mind set of all Israeli's, let alone, all Jews. The actions of Hamas != mind set of all Palestinians, let alone all Arabs.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
RealGrouchy
Nobody Misses Me As Much As Meaux.
Posts: 6704
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby RealGrouchy » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:31 am UTC

Diadem wrote:My comment was careless. I certainly do not think that the majority of Palestinians support terrorism. I think it's a pretty much universal law that in any conflict zone the majority of the population wants peace and quiet. But you should not underestimate the effects of decades of propaganda either.
You're right.

Guys, some people in this thread have been raised to believe that Israel does no evil--please be considerate of this handicap.

Diadem wrote:And for the last time. I do not support attacking and killing civilians. Not hamas voters, or non-terrorist members, or wifes of hamas leaders.
But you don't condemn it, either. At least, not for all of these cases.

Diadem wrote:Back to Israel. Yes, I did say that I care less about civilian casulaties if they are supporters of Hamas' terrorist activities. That does not mean I think we shouldn't care at all, or that Israel is free to target them. But it is a smaller tragedy. Yes.
Either you condemn a civilian casualty, or you don't. The only way to "care less" is to not condemn it at all, and you have repeatedly avoided condemning civilian casualties that are "passive supporters". If it is not condemned and there are no repercussions, then Israel is literally free to target them. Ergo, the accusation that you have demonstrated passive support for killing them.

Diadem wrote:
roc314 wrote:I would argue that saying we shouldn't care that civilians are dying is indicative of passive support for their killing. Which is what you are doing.
No, no, no, no, no.

I have always said that Israel is morally required to take the utmost care that it kills as few civilians as possible. Some civilian casualties are inevitable

...

Edit: The important thing is that we all agree that Israel is required to attempt to minimize civilian casualties. And I hope we also all agree that Israel is doing exactly that.
No they are NOT. Israel did NOT have to bomb the shit out of Gaza. It was Israel's choice to respond to the rocket attacks with such a heavy campaign that is causing the civilian casualties. (And don't raise Iraq as a moral comparison; that is well documented as being an unjustified aggression by the US and has turned into a shitmire). Just as in the schoolyard, it doesn't matter what came before, Israel is responsible for its actions, and for its decisions on how to respond.

Both sides in this are acting like Klingons, who care more about getting revenge for the last battle than about ending the conflict.

- RG>
Jack Saladin wrote:etc., lock'd
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:At least he has the decency to REMOVE THE GAP BETWEEN HIS QUOTES....
Sungura wrote:I don't really miss him. At all. He was pretty grouchy.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:05 am UTC

RealGrouchy wrote:Both sides in this are acting like Klingons, who care more about getting revenge for the last battle than about ending the conflict.

I think there's a theory, about quantum fields, or maybe ponies, which would be relevant to mention here...

We (who are criticizing Israel) are *not* doing so out of some weird variety of antisemitism (which only involves vitriolic hatred of Jews when they happen to be in Israel). We're mostly not even saying that what Israel's doing is worse than the killing of innocent civilians that Palestinians have done in the past. But when some people are on about how Israel is blameless in everything it's done, while Palestine deserves everything it's gotten, pardon us for trying to inject some fucking perspective into the debate. And if pointing out that some of what Israel has done is pretty damn awful reeks to you of antisemitism, it just goes to show how skewed your own viewpoint is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby aleflamedyud » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:58 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
RealGrouchy wrote:Both sides in this are acting like Klingons, who care more about getting revenge for the last battle than about ending the conflict.

I think there's a theory, about quantum fields, or maybe ponies, which would be relevant to mention here...

We (who are criticizing Israel) are *not* doing so out of some weird variety of antisemitism (which only involves vitriolic hatred of Jews when they happen to be in Israel). We're mostly not even saying that what Israel's doing is worse than the killing of innocent civilians that Palestinians have done in the past. But when some people are on about how Israel is blameless in everything it's done, while Palestine deserves everything it's gotten, pardon us for trying to inject some fucking perspective into the debate. And if pointing out that some of what Israel has done is pretty damn awful reeks to you of antisemitism, it just goes to show how skewed your own viewpoint is.

If you read my comment about anti-Semitism, the actual implication was that anti-Semitism -> anti-Israel views, not that (anti-Israel views OR criticism of Israeli actions) -> anti-Semitism. For a board full of trained mathematicians and computer scientists a remarkable number of people seem to have forgotten how one-way implication works. I pointed out that the Internet is a notoriously anti-Semitic venue. THIS IS A FACT, despite my explicit exempting of this board from the charge. That the Internet is mostly or often anti-Semitic, or at least more so than Normal People in the Real World, most definitely implies that the Internet will have anti-Israel opinions quite reflexively, while the converse statement is utterly false.

Once again, p->q does not mean that q->p. Please try to get the logic right.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:02 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:If you read my comment about anti-Semitism, the actual implication was that anti-Semitism -> anti-Israel views, not that (anti-Israel views OR criticism of Israeli actions) -> anti-Semitism.

You can't use that implication in arguing against people who are criticising Israel without creating the reverse implication. Unless, of course, you weren't actually addressing anyone's arguments, but were instead embarking on an anti-anti-Israel polemic that had nothing to do with the thread...
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby aleflamedyud » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:16 am UTC

Dream wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:If you read my comment about anti-Semitism, the actual implication was that anti-Semitism -> anti-Israel views, not that (anti-Israel views OR criticism of Israeli actions) -> anti-Semitism.

You can't use that implication in arguing against people who are criticising Israel without creating the reverse implication. Unless, of course, you weren't actually addressing anyone's arguments, but were instead embarking on an anti-anti-Israel polemic that had nothing to do with the thread...

My actual point was to demonstrate with at least anecdotal evidence that this war will result in the end of Hamas and its ilk rather than Israel, because at least a slim majority of people in the world seem to be seeing that Israel comes out at least narrowly in the right here and that Hamas have become an organization that just wants to kill and die rather than ever live peaceably.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:38 am UTC

RealGrouchy wrote:Guys, some people in this thread have been raised to believe that Israel does no evil--please be considerate of this handicap.


I don't believe I'm taking this out of context, but is the way you intend this sentence to read is that people arguing on Israel's behest here are convinced that Israel can do no evil due to our upbringing, an upbringing that is a handicap? If so, I'm calling some serious bullshit.
First off, much of the support for Israel on pages 3-5 has been fairly even handed, we're all acknowledging that Israel is committing acts of violence. Second off, calling someone who disagrees with you victim of a handicap is pretty insulting.

RealGrouchy wrote:If it is not condemned and there are no repercussions, then Israel is literally free to target them.


My call for equal condemnation was ignored by everyone save Dream, who openly stated he would not, which is fine, as it's his opinion. If you now ask for equal condemnation, I'd like to see equal criticism of the group who is still launching rockets into Israel.

gmalivuk wrote:And if pointing out that some of what Israel has done is pretty damn awful reeks to you of antisemitism, it just goes to show how skewed your own viewpoint is.


It's just that this thread was started, and continues to largely condemn Israel for retaliation or continuation of attacks, and while people claim that this is disproportionate or unfair or inhumane, that critical eye is not being turned on Hamas. Is pointing out what Hamas has done as damn awful pro-Israel?

Hmm. This is a discussion of a current event, and even with cited material, differing opinions exist. I hope that this place of all places remains open to the notion of discussion and won't fall to name calling or meta-arguments.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:52 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:My call for equal condemnation was ignored by everyone save Dream, who openly stated he would not, which is fine, as it's his opinion. If you now ask for equal condemnation, I'd like to see equal criticism of the group who is still launching rockets into Israel.

I did not say I would not, I said you were resorting to a very tired, cliched method of defending Israel, by demanding that anyone who alleges wrongdoing on the part of Israel must also do the same for Israel's enemies. You do not demand the complementary parity from those who criticise HAMAS. I also pointed out that condemnation of HAMAS is not very important in this discussion, because everyone is in agreement about the criminality of their actions. There is, however a strong body of opinion that approves of Israel's activities, and that body of opinion is worth arguing against. So every time you demand that Israel's critics condemn HAMAS, you attempt to skew the debate in your favour by weighting it towards the opposite side's crimes, and perpetuate the fiction that there is sufficient justification for the crimes Israel commits against the people of Palestine with depressing regularity.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:00 am UTC

So you approve Hamas launching rockets into Israel? It's such a fine line you just laid out, you don't approve of Hamas' actions, but you disapprove of Israels, and thus Israel is in the wrong? That Israel is in the wrong, and therefor grants justifications for the crimes committed against it with depressing regularity?

If condemnation is not important for this discussion, what does, what are you hoping for? I'm still discussing here because I think it's important to put out our ideas and thoughts, but if that doesn't matter, what does?

And YOUR OP was an open condemnation of Israel, demanding acknowledgment. It's wrong to also demand that acknowledgment from parties who have committed wrongs? Evidence supplied in favor of Israels response has been ignored, and little evidence pertaining to Israels purported war crimes has been presented.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:So you approve Hamas launching rockets into Israel?
That really is your only argument here, isn't it? Anyone disagrees with you, you demand they condemn HAMAS or be seen as a sympathiser. I am not going to play that game, as I explained above.
Evidence supplied in favor of Israels response has been ignored, and little evidence pertaining to Israels purported war crimes has been presented.

Firstly, no. No one is actually arguing about what did or didn't happen. They are arguing about intent and meaning and ethical defensibility. No one is disputing anything that can be proved with evidence. Secondly, Israel has banned journalists from entering Gaza. Any idea why that is? It means we don't have any reliable source for evidence that could expose Israel to criminal allegations.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:35 am UTC

RealGrouchy wrote:Guys, some people in this thread have been raised to believe that Israel does no evil--please be considerate of this handicap.

An ad hominem attack. Cool. Are you resorting to personal attacks because I'm winning the debate, or just because you're a bad debater?

RealGrouchy wrote:
Diadem wrote:And for the last time. I do not support attacking and killing civilians. Not hamas voters, or non-terrorist members, or wifes of hamas leaders.
But you don't condemn it, either. At least, not for all of these cases.

I agree that I did not say so explicitely. But I did say, and I quote: "I have always said that Israel is morally required to take the utmost care that it kills as few civilians as possible. Some civilian casualties are inevitable, and you can not fault Israel for this. But they are morally required to minimize civilian casualties". From this it followes pretty easily that I codemn targetting civilians. Because if you're doing that you're not attempting to minimize civilian casualties, which I said was a moral requirement.

But if you want to hear me say it explicitely: Yes, I condemn targetting civilians.

RealGrouchy wrote:
Diadem wrote:Back to Israel. Yes, I did say that I care less about civilian casulaties if they are supporters of Hamas' terrorist activities. That does not mean I think we shouldn't care at all, or that Israel is free to target them. But it is a smaller tragedy. Yes.
Either you condemn a civilian casualty, or you don't. The only way to "care less" is to not condemn it at all, and you have repeatedly avoided condemning civilian casualties that are "passive supporters". If it is not condemned and there are no repercussions, then Israel is literally free to target them. Ergo, the accusation that you have demonstrated passive support for killing them.

Condemnation and caring and not antonyms. In general one can do the former, the latter, both or neither.

Provided that Israel is doing its best to minimize civilian casualties, any casualties that still remain, I do not condemn at all. They are a tragic but unavoidable side-effect of war. I care, but I do not condemn it. If it turns out these civilians are supporters of Hamas, who, while not actually engaging in acts of terrorism themselves, do morally support it, and fuel the blind hate that keeps this conflict going... Yes, then I care less. I still condemn it equally though (ie: Not at all).

If Israel is not doing its best to minimize civilian casualties, for example by carelessly dropping bombs on a busy marketplace, killing dozens to assassinate one terrorist, I do condemn this. Regardless of who these civilians are or how many there are. I would even condemn it if by some miracle they all survived.

And if Israel would be targetting civilians, I would condemn that too.

But I have not yet seen any proof of any of those last two instances.

RealGrouchy wrote:
Diadem wrote:Edit: The important thing is that we all agree that Israel is required to attempt to minimize civilian casualties. And I hope we also all agree that Israel is doing exactly that.
No they are NOT. Israel did NOT have to bomb the shit out of Gaza. It was Israel's choice to respond to the rocket attacks with such a heavy campaign that is causing the civilian casualties.

What you are saying here is that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. No matter how often Hamas hits them, or attempts to hit them, they should shut and and swallow it. It's an interesting philosophy, but I can not help but wonder: Do you apply this to everybody? Do you also think England was wrong in defending itself against Hitler-Germany? Do you condemn the American revolution and think the US should have accepted Brittish rule?
Last edited by Diadem on Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:14 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Quixotess » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:56 am UTC

They're saying "Israel could have responded, but differently." I don't know enough about Gaza to detail exactly how.

But here's some instances of Israel targeting civilians from that link I gave in my last post (keep in mind this is from 2002):
7. Since the end of September 2000, the State of Israel has killed more than 550 Palestinians through shelling and bombardments of civilian and public infrastructure, homes, schools and other places. The State of Israel has caused death and injury to more Palestinians at checkpoints and due to prevention of medical access or restrictions of movement.

9. Since the end of September 2000, the State of Israel has launched military attacks on Palestinian civilians. These attacks include shootings, shelling and bombings in their homes, schools, universities, hospitals, field clinics, and workplaces. The State of Israel targeted clearly marked ambulances and paramedics, journalists, and human rights defenders. The State of Israel has used heavy weaponry and ammunition against Palestinians, including bombs, mortar shells, tank shells, air-to-ground and ground-to-ground missiles fired from attack helicopters and F-16 warplanes, naval warships, tanks and armored personnel carriers. The State of Israel is also responsible for the death of Palestinians, who have been shot and killed by Israeli snipers, shooting high-velocity live ammunitions at civilians in civilian areas. In this period, the State of Israel has killed and injured a disproportionate number of women and children, clearly-marked medical personnel, human rights defenders and journalists.

11. Since 1948, the State of Israel ordered and encouraged its military's brutal use of physical force against unarmed, mostly young Palestinians. This includes the systematic beating of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers and police, which gained particular notoriety in 1988, after the late Yitzhak Rabin, then Defense Minister, announced a policy of 'force, might, and beatings' on January 18, 1988. Palestinians have been beaten randomly, without any apparent connection to protests, they were often taken from their homes or off the streets and brutally assaulted. Beatings were also typically carried out by groups of Israeli soldiers acting in concert rather than individually. Beating incidents have taken place in situations where the victim offered no resistance. For example, on 19 and 21 January 1988, in the village of Huwarra, Israeli soldiers rounded up twenty residents, drove them to a remote area, bound and gagged them, and then deliberately broke their arms and legs. The lack of proper investigations into cases where Palestinians have been severely injured or killed as a result of beatings further confirms the fact that beatings are a policy of the State of Israel.

14. The State of Israel has assaulted Palestinian women in various ways, including illegal and indiscriminate use of lethal force by Israeli military authorities, resulting in deaths or injuries, the deliberate abuse of tear gas by Israeli military, resulting in suffocation, health problems, and miscarriages among Palestinian women, soldiers' brutality, sexual harassment and intimidation by Israeli soldiers, the use of obscene language, exposure, urinating on women, molestation and attempted rape, arrest, interrogation and torture inside Israeli prisons, hostage taking, expulsion, obstruction and harassment of women's committees and charitable organizations, raids on women's centers, kindergartens and cooperatives.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:21 am UTC

Quixotess wrote:They're saying "Israel could have responded, but differently." I don't know enough about Gaza to detail exactly how.

But the 'how' is important. Personally, I don't see any other way Israel could have responded. At least none that work. So if you have one I'd be very interested.

Historically many different approaches have been tried. Most notoriously the Oslo agreements. But none of those have worked. I will even go as far as saying that the Oslo agreements are in large part to blame for all the current trouble. They were represented to the Palestinian people by the PLO not as a step towards peace, but as a first victory over Israel. Thus they gave more momentum to the radicals.

This thread seems to be mostly about who is at fault. And important question for sure, but it would also be interesting to discuss possible ways to end this conflict. Maybe something for another thread.

But here's some instances of Israel targeting civilians from that link I gave in my last post (keep in mind this is from 2002):

(...)

Thanks. This is most useful. I am going to research this. The source does not seem very objective, but that of course does not mean he's not right. I wonder what other sources say about these particular accusations.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:25 am UTC

Diadem wrote:If Israel is not doing its best to minimize civilian casualties, for example by carelessly dropping bombs on a busy marketplace, killing dozens to assassinate one terrorist, I do condemn this. Regardless of who these civilians are or how many there are. I would even condemn it if by some miracle they all survived.

And if Israel would be targetting civilians, I would condemn that too.

But I have not yet seen any proof of any of those last two instances.

The Independent wrote:Nizar Rayan, the Hamas militant leader killed yesterday when Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on his home.

That airstrike killed 20 people, including all four of Rayan's wives and 11 of his 12 children. The strike on Rayan's home obliterated the four-story apartment building and peeled off the walls of others around it, carving out a vast field of rubble.

I await your condemnation, in the strongest terms.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:58 am UTC

Dream wrote:
The Independent wrote:Nizar Rayan, the Hamas militant leader killed yesterday when Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on his home.

That airstrike killed 20 people, including all four of Rayan's wives and 11 of his 12 children. The strike on Rayan's home obliterated the four-story apartment building and peeled off the walls of others around it, carving out a vast field of rubble.

I await your condemnation, in the strongest terms.

Before we condemn Israel, let us look at this a bit more closely, shall we. All quotes from wikipedia (which attempts to be NPOV but in practise is probably a little bit anti-Israel).

wikipedia wrote:An influential preacher at what is known in Jabalia as the "Mosque of martyrs", Rayan mentored suicide bombers. He is reported to have sent one of his own sons on a suicide mission, which also killed two Israelis at Elei Sinai.

After Hamas ceased deploying suicide bombers against Israel, Rayan advocated for their renewal. After the Israeli military killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004, Rayan came to be considered Hamas' top clerical authority . Israeli officials say Rayan directed and financed the Ashdod Port attack, which killed ten people.

Rayan was one of the architects behind the 2007 Battle of Gaza, in which 400 Palestinian Fatah party members were killed and dozens more Palestinians were tortured and maimed. According to an Hamas spokesperson, it's possible that the Palestinian National Authority asked Israel to kill Rayan due to his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes. He added that Rayan was one of the main reasons why many of Mahmoud Abbas's men "did not sleep well at night."

Rayan was fundamentally opposed to the state of Israel. He proclaimed, "We will never recognize Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination."


Clearly we have a guy here that is a top target for an attack. His execution was entirely justified.

Even so, 19 additional deaths seems excessive. Could Israel not have avoided this. Attacked him while he was away from home, for example? It appears, they could not:

Al-Jazeera reports that Rayan "had refused to take security precautions despite Hamas figures being at risk of assassination," and YNET reports while most of Hamas' leaders went into hiding after the Israeli operation began on December 27, 2008, Rayan "recently pledged not to leave his house under any circumstances."


So they had to kill him while he was in his home. Israel had no choice in this, he wasn't leaving it. Let's read on:

YNET also reports that the IDF "tried to warn his family about the imminent attack and urged them to evacuate the place, but they refused to do so," and the New York Daily News gives the source for this information as the Israeli military. The Telegraph reports that "Hamas radio" reported that Rayan had received a text message on his mobile phone from the Israeli military saying they were going to blow up his house, but that he refused to leave.


Israel warned his family! They warned them!

So no. I do not condemn Isreal for this attack. It is clear they did everything they could to minimize civilian casualties. They even went as far as announcing the attack in advance. Given that, how can you possible condemn Israel for their deaths?

Here's more:

According to the Israeli government, Rayan's house served as an arms and ammunition warehouse and as a Hamas communications center at the time of the attack. The Israeli military said that the many secondary explosions were triggered by the weapons stockpile stored within his house.


The guy had turned his house into a military installation! This makes Israel attacking it even more justified. Also it appears at least some of the damage, and maybe some of the deaths, were caused by the secondary explosions, not Israels attack. Though I admit that last line is speculation on my part.



I think this whole story is a classic example of how bias is introduced in this debate. At face value killing 19 innocents to assassinate one terrorist is excessive. But if we look at it more closely, we see a completely different picture. Most people however are content with blaming Israel and refuse to look closer.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Diadem wrote: killing dozens to assassinate one terrorist, I do condemn this. Regardless of who these civilians are or how many there are. I would even condemn it if by some miracle they all survived.


I could have bet my house on you going back to your bullshit excuse about associating with terrorists making murder acceptable. You claimed, right there in the quote, to condemn killing dozens to assassinate a single terrorist, and to do so regardless of the status of those civilians. You merely asked for an example of such conduct. The moment it actually appears, its back to killing being ok for people who know people who are in HAMAS. And as for your "justification" effort, IT WAS A TON OF EXPLOSIVES. It "carved out a field of rubble." Excessive has a picture of this attack beside it in dictionaries everywhere.
Diadem wrote:Israel warned his family! They warned them!

Your source on this is a second hand report on a statement by the IDF. Doubtless it was headlined "Shock As Military Spokesperson Claims Slaughter Was Not Really That Bad!"

You are weaseling out of the stark implications of the reports coming out of Gaza because you believe everything Israel does is by definition good. This is proof, if it were necessary, that Grouchy was absolutely correct in saying that some people really are conditioned to approve of Israel's actions. If you disagree, please do post details of your condemnation of Israel for any crime or atrocity, any time in the past fifty years. Or has Israel never so much as mussed its military hairdo?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:38 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
Diadem wrote: killing dozens to assassinate one terrorist, I do condemn this. Regardless of who these civilians are or how many there are. I would even condemn it if by some miracle they all survived.


I could have bet my house on you going back to your bullshit excuse about associating with terrorists making murder acceptable. You claimed, right there in the quote, to condemn killing dozens to assassinate a single terrorist, and to do so regardless of the status of those civilians.

Twisting the meaning of a quotation by cutting off important bits is one of the cheapest debating tricks availble. My full quote was: "If Israel is not doing its best to minimize civilian casualties, for example by carelessly dropping bombs on a busy marketplace, killing dozens to assassinate one terrorist, I do condemn this". I was talking about 'killing dozens by carelessly dropping bombs on marketplaces'. Don't twist my words.

You merely asked for an example of such conduct. The moment it actually appears

But your example is wrong. I asked for examples of Israel carelessly attacking their targets without any regard for civilian life. That is clearly not the case here, Israel did attempt to minimize civilian casualties here by giving advance warning. Your example is actually proof of my position.

its back to killing being ok for people who know people who are in HAMAS.

You're deliberately twisting my words, putting things in my mouth I did not say, and a dozen other cheap debating tricks. This is a patent lie and you know it.

And as for your "justification" effort

Because once you put quotationmarks around a word it becomes automatically untrue. This is universal "truth".

Dream wrote:
Diadem wrote:Israel warned his family! They warned them!

Your source on this is a second hand report on a statement by the IDF.

There are 3 different sources reporting this, one from within Hamas itself. Link.

Warning the residents before launching an air-strike on a house is in fact standard policy of the IDF (link, 4th paragraph onwards). Hamas itself reports that the IDF had done this as well in this case, but that Rayan opted for a martyr's death. This might be pr to make him look more heroic, but if hamas and the IDF are saying the same thing, why would I doubt it?

You are weaseling out of the stark implications of the reports coming out of Gaza because you believe everything Israel does is by definition good. This is proof, if it were necessary, that Grouchy was absolutely correct in saying that some people really are conditioned to approve of Israel's actions. If you disagree, please do post details of your condemnation of Israel for any crime or atrocity, any time in the past fifty years. Or has Israel never so much as mussed its military hairdo?

Says someone who has given one example to backup his claim; an example that, upon closer examination, completely falls apart and in fact proves the opposite point. And you don't even admit this. I don't know who Grouchy is, and if his statement is true. But it seems certainly true that some people are conditioned to find fault in and disprove of everything Israel does.

As to myself: In this thread I have not said much against Israel, this is true. I've been too busy dissecting anti-Israelian bullshit, I've had no time yet for honest criticism. This does not mean I'm not critical of Israel.

You want me to give you a list of Israelian wrongs? Sure. A complete list would be too long. But I'll give a few examples:
- They torture prisoners.
- They seem very reluctant to act against colonists who use violence.
- Their colonization policy in itself is kind of bullshit. Understandable at the time I guess, but they should have cancelled it many years ago.
- Worst of all: They have completely neglected their duty to protect the Palestinian people by allowing the PLO to take over and completely ruin the West-Bank and Gaza. If you occupy an area, as Israel did in 1967, you inherit a duty to protect the people living there, which includes making sure of a decent government once you withdraw.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:07 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:- Worst of all: They have completely neglected their duty to protect the Palestinian people by allowing the PLO to take over and completely ruin the West-Bank and Gaza. If you occupy an area, as Israel did in 1967, you inherit a duty to protect the people living there, which includes making sure of a decent government once you withdraw.
I see. The problems of the people of Palestine are actually all a consequence of Israel not protecting them from themselves. And that fantasy is the worst thing you can think of. Look up Qana, and the massacre of civilians there by Israeli artillery. Look up the cluster bombing of Lebanon in the hours before the end of the recent invasion. (Invasion of a sovereign nation by Israel, by the way. Aggression, which is a Nuremberg war crime.) If you can come down from Cloud Cuckoo Land for long enough to dispassionately appraise the horrific things that Israel has done to its neighbours and realise that there are many, many instances of Israel committing crimes and atrocities in the name of its security then perhaps this debate can continue. As long as you refuse to entertain the notion that Israel could possibly be in the wrong, this is futile.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:13 pm UTC

Dream wrote:As long as you refuse to entertain the notion that Israel could possibly be in the wrong, this is futile.


I just gave you 4 examples of things Israel is doing wrong. All of them serious crimes. More serious than the example of the Qana airstrike that you gave, which is just an tragic accident.

It's interesting that I can come up with more serious Israelian transgressions than you can. Yet you still dare say that I refuse to see any fault in Israel?

You are right. This is futile.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:51 pm UTC

Dream wrote:nvasion of a sovereign nation by Israel, by the way. Aggression, which is a Nuremberg war crime.


Except in all cases you've listed, Israel was attacked, and retaliation is legal according to the International Court of Justice.

The notion of proportionality is a tired and cliche attack against Israeli responses.

Quixotess wrote:...some instances of Israel targeting civilians from that link I gave in my last post


And the point I tried to make was that if you Wikipedia Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, you will be barraged with a deluge of atrocities committed by both parties. The PLO in it's entirety, is, quite frankly, just as, if not far more, responsible for a growing list of human rights violations, barbaric acts of violence, targeting of civilians and worst yet, children, as the link you provided claims Israel is.

Dream wrote:That really is your only argument here, isn't it? Anyone disagrees with you, you demand they condemn HAMAS or be seen as a sympathiser. I am not going to play that game, as I explained above.
.

No, my game here is pointing out that your 'calling for condemnation' has been going on now a number of pages, and you are using largely uncited and strong language-laden claims to support your obvious bias against Israel. Everytime someone has pointed out a disagreement with you, you cry foul. If you rant about the atrocities commited by Israel, I point out the atrocities commited by HAMAS, which are quickly ignored and you continue with your strong language and we who disagree are declared to have a handicap.

While we openly condemn Israel if it were to be targeting civilians, which so far there is still no, or very spotty evidence of, it AGAIN bears mentioning that rockets are STILL being launched at Israeli towns. Not military installations, like the sort Israel is allegedly targeting in Gaza, but towns.

Dream wrote:If you can come down from Cloud Cuckoo Land for long enough to dispassionately appraise the horrific things that Israel has done to its neighbours and realise that there are many, many instances of Israel committing crimes and atrocities in the name of its security then perhaps this debate can continue.


Your language is not very helpful to this discussion. No one is launching attacks against you personally.
Qana was a tragic mistake, Israel openly apologized for and assumed responsibility for. Further investigation by Human Rights Watch noted that the initial casualty count was double the actual count, which does not diminish the tragedy by any amount. You should also read this, because it posits that missiles were being launched from Qana.

You can pick and choose whatever tragedies you want pertaining to Israel's actions causing Palestinians civilian deaths, and you won't hear any denial on my part, or it seems, Diadems part, that they are tragic and certainly stain Israel's hands with blood. I'm not saying it's right, or acceptable. But to just as you accuse us who are in favor of Israel of using:
Dream wrote:bullshit excuse
's
and:
Dream wrote:weaseling out of the stark implications

And believing:
Dream wrote:[that] Israel never so much as mussed its military hairdo

I think it's important that you recognize, for the sake of discussion, you doing the very same bullshitting, weaseling, and favoring of PLO organizations for a list of atrocities committed against Israel. As you said,

Dream wrote:I also pointed out that condemnation of HAMAS is not very important in this discussion, because everyone is in agreement about the criminality of their actions.


So fine.

Dream wrote:I await your condemnation, in the strongest terms.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:18 pm UTC

Once again, since people still seem to be missing it repeatedly:

NO ONE DISAGREES THAT PLO OR HAMAS TARGETING OF ISRAELI CIVILIANS IS A TERRIBLE AND ILLEGAL THING TO DO.

That is why we don't find it productive to continue rehashing how awful suicide bombings are. We all agree on that. There's nothing that can really come out of a discussion on that. We can, however, continue to push for parity in condemning the heinous acts that Israel has also committed. Because that discussion can be productive. Because some of you still seem to be trying to weasel out of any admission of real, unjustified wrongdoing on Israel's part throughout its entire history.

Diadem wrote:Twisting the meaning of a quotation by cutting off important bits is one of the cheapest debating tricks availble.

This is the same shit you accused me of in the faster-than-wind discussion in Science. But the thing is: no one is going to quote your entire damn post in order to respond to one bit of it. Anyone who wants to see your words can just scroll up to get the context. No one who fails to quote everything you said about it is actually doing you any disservice, because they're not actually editing your own post in any way. It also in no way means that they haven't read and understood the parts of your post that they decided not to post, because they decided not to specifically respond to those parts. (Here's a thought: perhaps some of the unquoted things you say, which you then bring up to argue against someone you think is out to disagree with *everything* you've ever said ever, is actually unquoted because the respondent in fact does agree with it, and so doesn't see any need to restate something that's already been said...)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:NO ONE DISAGREES THAT PLO OR HAMAS TARGETING OF ISRAELI CIVILIANS IS A TERRIBLE AND ILLEGAL THING TO DO.


I'm not really seeing Dream admit this. But if it's just an accepted, a given fact for this thread, or I missed it, then my mistake.

gmalivuk wrote:We can, however, continue to push for parity in condemning the heinous acts that Israel has also committed. Because that discussion can be productive. Because some of you still seem to be trying to weasel out of any admission of real, unjustified wrongdoing on Israel's part throughout its entire history.


Diadem pointed out a handful of atrocities, and those that have been presented haven't been denied. No one is trying to 'weasel out' of the notion that many, many Palestinians have been murdered.

That said, I'm not sure what kind of 'productive discussion' people are hoping to have? Current events pertaining to the war aren't being mentioned (Israel is mobilizing ground troops, Hamas has stated they want a final confrontation in some city), the only thing people seem intent upon is pointing out is either that A) Israel is a mean mean genocidal tyrant, or B) Israel is responding to the actions of mean mean genocidal terrorists.

But here, for current events discussion: sending ground troops in is a mistake. I believe Israel should back off, and regulate, but allow, humanitarian aid to flow in. The injured should be allowed access to Israeli hospitals (although I've seen reports that they are). I understand that ceasefire's have previously been counter productive(UNIFIL), but I firmly believe that history has demonstrated escalating of counter-counter-counter-counter attacks is also counter productive.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:19 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:NO ONE DISAGREES THAT PLO OR HAMAS TARGETING OF ISRAELI CIVILIANS IS A TERRIBLE AND ILLEGAL THING TO DO.

I'm not really seeing Dream admit this. But if it's just an accepted, a given fact for this thread, or I missed it, then my mistake.
Dream wrote:condemnation of HAMAS is not very important in this discussion, because everyone is in agreement about the criminality of their actions.

He did. You missed it. (And that was only the most recent of at least a couple times he's said essentially the same thing.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Lumpy » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

On the issue of proportionality, can China invade Mexico over any third party tourist kidnappings, on the basis that Mexico apparently has no ability to stop them? It just has to be construed as an "attack" and the government has to declare war on whatever organization that did it before they send soldiers marching in. I mean, they have 1.3 billion people. They can surely occupy territory by sending soldiers to places with kidnapped civilians somewhere.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Gunfingers » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:39 pm UTC

Well to be fair, this "rocket attack" thing wasn't exactly an isolated incident. If there were an organization in Mexico deliberately targeting and kidnapping Chinese citizens and the Mexican government couldn't stop it i can't say i'd be overly opposed to China doing something about it. But then i don't have much of a problem with OEF either, so maybe i'm just full of crap.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:07 am UTC

Lumpy, are you suggesting that Israel is putting it's soldiers in harms way, with the intent of their kidnapping/murder, so as to invade neighboring countries?

Proportionality is not really a legitimate argument, by UN law, no nation is required to only respond with equal force to attacks.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:26 am UTC

Gunfingers wrote:Well to be fair, this "rocket attack" thing wasn't exactly an isolated incident. If there were an organization in Mexico deliberately targeting and kidnapping Chinese citizens and the Mexican government couldn't stop it i can't say i'd be overly opposed to China doing something about it. But then i don't have much of a problem with OEF either, so maybe i'm just full of crap.

And what if China did so with such fury that it killed a thousand Mexican civilians who merely had the misfortune to live in a convenient part of the country for China to attack? The kidnappings were a complete justification for a military response to retrieve the victims. However Israel's actions could have been designed specifically to prevent the soldiers ever getting home by goading Hezbollah and making it impossible for them to back down, while at the same time turning all opinion in Lebanon against Israel. Since it makes absoluetly no sense as a retrieval operation, the explanation is probably more simple: they thought they could destroy Hezbollah. And that is aggression, pure and simple. (Oh, wait, your post was specifically about the Gaza situation. Damn. Well, I'll leave this here in the hope that it supports Lumpy's post.)

Izawwlgood wrote:Diadem pointed out a handful of atrocities, and those that have been presented haven't been denied. No one is trying to 'weasel out' of the notion that many, many Palestinians have been murdered.
No, he wrote that Palestine's problems were their own fault for being governed by the PLO, and that Israel's share of the blame for their problem was merely in not saving them from themselves. He gave a non-specific admission that Israel uses torture, and then three equivocal statements about guilt by inaction. That is not on a par with all the times they've actually you know, killed hundreds of Palestinians. If that isn't weaseling out of admitting Israel's guilt, you must have very strange weasels.
Izawwlgood wrote:Qana was a tragic mistake, Israel openly apologized for and assumed responsibility for. Further investigation by Human Rights Watch noted that the initial casualty count was double the actual count, which does not diminish the tragedy by any amount. You should also read this, because it posits that missiles were being launched from Qana.
I can't understand how you don't see how infuriating this is. You are incapable even of outright condemning this example, even though you contend it was a mistake. You just have to get in your bit about rockets, even if its only source is the people who did the killing.

Well, if you believe that rockets were coming frominside a UN compound full of civilians, you'd believe the IDF if they said the sky was purple and they'll win a million dollars if you believe them. Because the IDF actually has a history of slaughtering civilians in southern Lebanon, and the recent Qana attack is part of it.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:04 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Once again, since people still seem to be missing it repeatedly:

NO ONE DISAGREES THAT PLO OR HAMAS TARGETING OF ISRAELI CIVILIANS IS A TERRIBLE AND ILLEGAL THING TO DO.

The problem is that pro-Palestinian arguments too often seem to go along the lines of: "<long rant about all Israels crimes> oh and of course Hamas does some bad stuff as well, but <more ranting about Israel>". It's not so much denying the crimes of Hamas, as trying to make them into a footnote. But it's not a footnote. It's the primary casus belli. It is over overwhelming importance.

There's nothing wrong with criticism of Israel. It's required even. Alle nations need critical-thinking people who closely follow their actions, to keep them on the right track. But too often criticism of Israel takes the form of Hamas-apologetics. And that's just plain wrong.

We can, however, continue to push for parity in condemning the heinous acts that Israel has also committed.

You are demanding parity where there is none. Why on earth should I be required to condemn Israel and Hamas equally, when they are not equally to blame? I condemn heinous acts of both sides equally. But Israel has commited far fewer of those. And they did not start the conflict, which is also important. So all-in-all far less blame lies with Israel than with Hamas.

Diadem wrote:Twisting the meaning of a quotation by cutting off important bits is one of the cheapest debating tricks availble.

This is the same shit you accused me of in the faster-than-wind discussion in Science. But the thing is: no one is going to quote your entire damn post in order to respond to one bit of it.

I don't demand that they quote my entire post. I demand that they do not quote me out of context. This is universally agreed to be a very lame and dishonorable thing to do. If person x says "I like kicking my son's ass in counterstrike" and you quote him as "I like kicking my son's ass", that is extremely dishonest. If you publicly accused someone of beating his children based on such a quote you'd be fined for slander.

In casu, I said "Carelessly killing civilians by bombing marketplaces is wrong" and dream quotes me as "kiling civilians is wrong" and then, based on that quote, tries to argue that I am contradicting myself. I will not stand for that.

And neither should you allow such misquoting, being a mod.

Oh, the faster-than-the-wind discussion was completely different. In that thread, I complained about ignoring the main points of a post and attacking relatively unimportant sideissues to score points. Dream has also been doing that incessantly, but for my own personal sanity I've decided not to make a point about everything. Anyway that's a much less serious thing.

[edit]
Gunfingers wrote:Well to be fair, this "rocket attack" thing wasn't exactly an isolated incident. If there were an organization in Mexico deliberately targeting and kidnapping Chinese citizens and the Mexican government couldn't stop it i can't say i'd be overly opposed to China doing something about it.

If the Mexican government couldn't stop them, the proper course of action for China would be to offer assistence, and work together with Mexico to put a stop to it.

But what if the Mexican government wouldn't put a stop to it? Then China would have a right to step in themselves and put a stop to it. Even attacking the Mexican government in the process, who can now be said to be collaborating.

Governments refusing to put a stop to terrorists operating from within their borders against another country... This is a valid casus belli. And historically it has been, many times. World War I basically started for this reason. The US attack on Afghanistan was justified by this argument. There are many more examples.

In Israel this is also clearly the case. Were Gaza a normal country the authorities would try to put a stop to the terrorism against Israel. But they do not. Hell they encourage it. Given this, Israel has every right to take up this task themselves.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:20 am UTC

Dream wrote:I can't understand how you don't see how infuriating this is. You are incapable even of outright condemning this example, even though you contend it was a mistake. You just have to get in your bit about rockets, even if its only source is the people who did the killing.


Your referring to the 1996 Qana bombing, which looks to be a gross, negligent, possibly (or likely) even intentional violence on the part of the IDF. Again, as I've said many times in this thread, Israels hands are not clean of blood.

I was referring to the 2006 Qana bombing, which looks to be a quite different. And, in much the same way you claim that the 2006 Lebanon invasion was nothing but a massacre, I don't think they are/were. The very sites the IDF was attempting to bomb in 2006 Qana bombing had rocket fire coming from them, according to wikipedia..

So what would be sufficient condemnation for you? I certainly don't feel vindicated in PLO related organization condemnation in this thread, but that's neither here nor there. But didn't gmalivuk say that condemning either party wasn't the point of this thread? That is was pointless? Didn't YOU also say that? You seem awfully intent and set in picking atrocities from the past and demanding condemnation. It'd be just as easy for me to pick a series of events from the past that incriminate PLO related organizations, and demand condemnation. I could even toss in some ad hominem arguments to liven things up a bit.

It doesn't seem like anyone wants a discussion, as so far, I think four comments about developments with this event have been ignored with no response. You were the OP, maybe you can help out and say what you hope to
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:28 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:It'd be just as easy for me to pick a series of events from the past that incriminate PLO related organizations, and demand condemnation. I could even toss in some ad hominem arguments to liven things up a bit.
And if people in this thread were refusing to address the crimes of the PLO without insisting on highlighting those of Israel, that would be a very valid point to make. But it is the other way around. This thread is about Israel bombing Gaza, and HAMAS, while its contribution to the situation should certainly be present in the discussion, is not the point. Sticking on the actions of HAMAS every single time someone brings up an Israeli attack is useless, because the guilt of HAMAS is assumed here. Were we not assuming that, you'd be right to bring it up. As it is, it really looks like a somkescreen.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:45 am UTC

Dream wrote:But it is the other way around.


Well I certainly disagree, but moving on.

Dream wrote:This thread is about Israel bombing Gaza, and HAMAS, while its contribution to the situation should certainly be present in the discussion, is not the point


Then tell me, what is the point? Any claim we've made to include Hamas's responsibility has been called smoke screening or such. Either we vehemently cry out against injustice and spit on the very ground Israel walks upon, or we're accused of fillibustering discussion by ignoring any fault of Israel. I condemn the loss of life, and think Israel is responsible for bombings that kill Palestinians. If you posit however that Hamas has contributed to the situation, but we should not be discussing a blame game, so to speak, I ask again,

Izawwlgood wrote:It doesn't seem like anyone wants a discussion, as so far, I think four comments about developments with this event have been ignored with no response. You were the OP, maybe you can help out and say what you hope to
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:09 am UTC

Dream wrote:No, he wrote that Palestine's problems were their own fault for being governed by the PLO, and that Israel's share of the blame for their problem was merely in not saving them from themselves.

How on earth did you manage to read that in what i said? Nevermind, I don't want to know. But for the record: No, I did not say that. I said that Israel, having occupied the West-Bank and Gaza in 1967 has inherited a moral obligation to protect the people living there. They grossly neglected this moral obligation when they abandoned these areas and left them in the hands of religious zealots and terrorists. Not only are they themselves suffering because of this, but so are all peace-loving Palestinians (which are the majority).

Saving someone from himself? While this can be a noble thing to do in rare individual cases (such as preventing someone from commited suicide) there is no such moral obligation. And the concept is not even valid on the level of peoples. Protecting a group of individuals against criminal elements in this group is not protection them against themselves. It's protecting individuals against other individuals. But I digress.

I did not say it was the Palestinian people's own faul that the PLO came to power. I said exactly the opposite. I said it is Israel's fault.

Dream wrote:He gave a non-specific admission that Israel uses torture, and then three equivocal statements about guilt by inaction. That is not on a par with all the times they've actually you know, killed hundreds of Palestinians. If that isn't weaseling out of admitting Israel's guilt, you must have very strange weasels.

Weaseling out of admitting Israel's guilt? Dude, the things I pointed out are *far worse* than killing Palestinian civilians by accident in a war. The latter is tragic, and might be criminally neglectant. If it can be proven that the commanding officers did it on purpose, it is murder. But we are talking about isolated incidents here. There is no pattern, they are not systematic, there is no policy behind it, no purpose.

Their use of torture however is systematic and widespread. And sanctioned from within the highest levels of government. That makes it a war crime.
Not acting against colonists who use violence is a serious breach of the rule of law, and probably a war crime.
Building settlements in occupied territories in an attempt to annex this land is a serious breach of international law.

You really, really, really need to get your priorities straight if you think a tragic accident is morally more condemnable than war crimes.


dream wrote:Well, if you believe that rockets were coming frominside a UN compound full of civilians

Not from the compound. From next to the compound. At the time of this incident Israel had the policy to retalliate to any enemy fire within 10 minutes by airstrike. Unfortunately they were extremely overzealous in this case, and bombed the compound instead of the terrorists. A tragic incident, where Israel bears a heavy blame for being so careless and excessive. I don't think anyone has denied this though. Israel has admitted their error and taken responsibility for it. They have even improved their strategies over the years, making another incident like this far less likely.

You seem uncapable of grasping this all-important distinction though: Israel is doing its utmost best to minimize civilian casualties (even if they don't always succeed). Hamas is doing its utmost best to maximize civilian casualties.

Both on the Israelian side and their own side. Hamas makes a habit of hiding behind civilians when firing their rockets. The Qana incident is no exception. This usage of civilians as a shield is also a warcrime. Perhaps you could find it in your heart to condemn this as well? Or are you too busy condemning Israel for decade old accidents?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Lumpy » Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:36 am UTC

Lumpy, are you suggesting that Israel is putting it's soldiers in harms way, with the intent of their kidnapping/murder, so as to invade neighboring countries?


No, it was more a commentary on a loophole in the UN law.

Likewise, under the U.S. resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and organizations, people, and nations that shelter or aid them, the President could then commit a unilateral strike against a location in Canada without going before Congress.

Many scientists are kidnapped or killed each year in African countries that they visit to do research on endangered species. If the first world countries they hailed from decided to declare war upon organizations that did the kidnapping and do unilateral strikes within their borders, then under this 'proportionality is not needed' notion, then that would be acceptable.

I say this because there are leaders in the world that interpret law not how it was intended to be read, but send a legion of lawyers to try to decipher what would be the best excuse for their mischief. For example, President Bush told Congress they should write the bailout provision on CEO salary caps so that only companies auctioning their assets at a government auction were to have CEO salaries capped. Congress obliged and Paulson decided not to hold any government auctions, so no CEO salaries were capped.

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby roc314 » Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:52 am UTC

Diadem wrote:You want me to give you a list of Israelian wrongs? Sure. A complete list would be too long. But I'll give a few examples:
- They torture prisoners.
I agree that is inhumane and wrong.
- They seem very reluctant to act against colonists who use violence.
While certain events (such as the one that prompted this thread) would seem to say that this is not true, let's assume that it is. In that case, when asked for an example of Israel committing a war crime or atrocity, your answer is they didn't use enough violence (and don't kid yourself, judging by your other posts, by reluctance to act, you mean reluctance to use harsh military force). So if this is true, then it is not an atrocity but rather the opposite.
- Their colonization policy in itself is kind of bullshit. Understandable at the time I guess, but they should have cancelled it many years ago.
Understandable isn't usually a word applied to atrocities. Besides that, I agree that this is wrong.
- Worst of all: They have completely neglected their duty to protect the Palestinian people by allowing the PLO to take over and completely ruin the West-Bank and Gaza. If you occupy an area, as Israel did in 1967, you inherit a duty to protect the people living there, which includes making sure of a decent government once you withdraw.
(The dates and such are from Wikipedia, so some of the information might be slightly inaccurate.)

Why is the PLO bad? They seem to enjoy support from most everyone but Israel and its close allies. They aren't a terrorist group either. Since 1974, when the PLO was admitted to the UN, most of the world has seen them as the official representatives of Palestine. In 1991, the USA and Israel both stopped considering the PLO to be a terrorist organization. And in 1993 both the PLO and Israel formally recognized each other. In 2004, the USA went back to saying the PLO is a terrorist group (funny how that changed from Clinton to Bush). The rest of the world still doesn't consider them terrorists.

Essentially, you are saying that Israel allowing the Palestinians to have a government that they support and represents their interests, rather than Israel's interests, is an atrocity.

Do you see why so many are disputing your list of Israeli "atrocities"?
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:09 am UTC

Proportionality refers to the notion that because Israel has a stronger military then does the PLO, that it should curb it's attacks. As far as it being used to attack say, Columbia because of some cartel, I think the US would only consider something along this course of action if Columbia wasn't actively trying to stop cartel activity within it's own borders.
EDIT: Or what Diadem said

EDIT: The PLO 'recognizes' Israel as a flavor of the month. Today, they do, tomorrow, they don't. Various spokesmen seem to say what they feel will fit best given who and what the publicity is for the time being.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:42 am UTC

Israel is a fuck.

To support its government at this point is to be a fuck.

The calamities aside they bombed a University and don't give a shit about civilians. At that point they are a fuck.

Further I honestly no longer believe that a vast majority of Israelis see Arabs as human.

I am going to be so pissed when i defend Jewish rights when the next genocide happens because there are so many fucks that support that fuck of a government and so very many of them just because they have Jewish descent.

Am I anti-semetic, no I just said I will defend Jewish rights when the next genocide happens. Fuck you for thinking that.

fuck.

Am I using too many swear words, no I honestly don't have a better way of expressing myself.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:44 am UTC

roc314 wrote:Why is the PLO bad?

Well, it's not really on topic for this thread, since the PLO aren't actually involved in the Gaza situation, but the PLO is generally held to be corrupt and unrepresentative. It also had a hand in various peace deals that turned out to screw over many ordinary Palestinians. They may not be terrorists, but like those other former terrorists Sinn Fein, they are hardly objectively a good organisation.
Izawwlgood wrote:Proportionality refers to the notion that because Israel has a stronger military then does the PLO, that it should curb it's attacks.

Perhaps in your head it does, but for most people it refers to the idea that the response to a military attack should be in proportion to the damage done in that attack. Proportionality does not mean heavy force cannot be used, it means that it must have a valid connection to the threat posed by the attack. The 2006 invasion of Lebanon is the textbook example of disproportionate force, as it killed so many an damaged so much of the country with the stated aim of saving the lives of or recovering the bodies of only two servicemen. Of course strategically and politically it had may other aims, but the justification was those two soldiers, and that is what makes it disproportionate. It has nothing to do with relative strengths, but with actual activities.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Diadem » Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:55 pm UTC

roc314 wrote:
Diadem wrote:- They seem very reluctant to act against colonists who use violence.
While certain events (such as the one that prompted this thread) would seem to say that this is not true, let's assume that it is. In that case, when asked for an example of Israel committing a war crime or atrocity, your answer is they didn't use enough violence (and don't kid yourself, judging by your other posts, by reluctance to act, you mean reluctance to use harsh military force). So if this is true, then it is not an atrocity but rather the opposite.

You misunderstood the point I was making. Colonists in the context of this conflict means 'Israelians living in Gaza or the West-Bank'. These are often hardliners. Fundamentalists. They oppose any concession towards the Palestines, and consider those areas rightful part of Israel. Not all do, of course, I don't want to generalize, but it's a common attitude amongst colonists. Violence by this group against Palestinians is quite common. This is wrong. Israel barely acts against this. Colonists who attack Palestinians are rarely tried. That is even more wrong. Basically Israel is refusing to uphold the law in this case. I'm not sure if that classifies as a war crime, but it's certainly a serious atrocity. And with 'act' I don't mean bomb them. I mean arrest them and give them a fair trial.

roc314 wrote:
Diadem wrote:- Their colonization policy in itself is kind of bullshit. Understandable at the time I guess, but they should have cancelled it many years ago.
Understandable isn't usually a word applied to atrocities. Besides that, I agree that this is wrong.

Well this one is not really an atrocity I guess. But it's a breach of international law. They are basically stealing land. Back in 1967 that might have been defensible. But in this day and age... No.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Chfan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:26 pm UTC
Location: American East Coast

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Chfan » Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:23 pm UTC

Why do I even look at this thread any more? Israel is handling this terribly, Hamas is handling this terribly, the Arab League is handling this terribly, EVERYONE is doing a pretty shitty job. And every moment Israel overreacts and Hamas makes threats and harsh words are thrown around, people die. This is such a divisive issue with so many different aspects and so many people that need blame, and I feel like I'm losing respect just by hearing others' opinions. I'm just sick and tired of this whole problem.

sigh...
Just FYI, the guy isn't avatar isn't me. But he seems pretty cool.

dic_penderyn
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:29 am UTC
Location: Merthyr Tydfil, Wales

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby dic_penderyn » Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:41 pm UTC

Being completely impartial here (in that I have no preference for either of the states in this war)....I find this disgraceful.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80 ... =351020202

:evil:


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests