Which only leaves all the other logical fallacies and the fact that you're wrong. Let me know when you get around to "editing to fix" those too.

The fact that reuters alone was caught using 919 photographs all of them presumably doctered by the same individual in the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006.

Then there were staged photos that the AP used, I fail to see the fallacy in my Logic. There is a point when something becomes a pattern and 919 photos goes far beyond that point.

The fact that reuters alone was caught using 919 photographs all of them presumably doctered by the same individual in the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006.

Then there were staged photos that the AP used, I fail to see the fallacy in my Logic. There is a point when something becomes a pattern and 919 photos goes far beyond that point.

SOURCE.

SOURCE.

I posted it earlier in this thread

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579115&postcount=192)

still waiting for your response to israel's admission that hamas didn't fire into israel during the ceasefire

e: gonna go play some mass effect while you find a way to absolve israel of guilt
e2: decided against mass effect imma play nwn2 instead

D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread.

To settle the Mads Gilbert thing: jmac got it translated correctly, that said he have also said that he supports armed revolution in just about every country and was the local communist (not an exagaration) crackpot in my old home town, so I'd not take him terribly seriously.

Source please, and I'd like a video source plz.

Oh, that's rich.

Furthermore these news agencies have a track record of using bogus material to try to condemn Israel.


Irrelevant. The news reporting doesn't change the fact that what Israel is doing is wrong. The things being reported by the idf are enough for us to make our case (see: anything jmac has posted in this thread).

D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread.

Agree. Well said, Bee. I think the number of casualties speaks for itself.

_EW_

Agree. Well said, Bee. I think the number of casualties speaks for itself.

_EW_

Well, clearly, the *totally factless and baseless argument with no supporting sources about Hamas militants using schools as base camps* justifies the deaths of countless innocent children.

:words:

Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant.

Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant.

it's ok none were americans or western allies (but since those guys still aren't americans they count as 1/2 a person)

D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread.

This is a tough call, and actually Hamas, IF they were housing munitions in the school(s) or were shooting from the roof of the school, were in direct violation of the Laws of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war).
Relevant section:
Violations and applicability

Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

Once Hamas put weapons in the school, it was no longer a protected target, no matter how much we despise the very idea of bombing anything with children inside it.

Hamas knew there were children in the school, and knew it was a gross violation to have weapons there. The blood of those children are on Israel's hands, to be sure (they could have bombed it at night time when children were unlikely to be inside), but even greater responsibility falls on Hamas for blatantly violating the rules of warfare. In fact, Hamas is guilty of war crimes if it knowingly housed weapons on any protected property.

This is a tough call, and actually Hamas, IF they were housing munitions in the school(s) or were shooting from the roof of the school, were in direct violation of the Laws of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war).
Relevant section:


Once Hamas put weapons in the school, it was no longer a protected target, no matter how much we despise the very idea of bombing anything with children inside it.

Hamas knew there were children in the school, and knew it was a gross violation to have weapons there. The blood of those children are on Israel's hands, to be sure (they could have bombed it at night time when children were unlikely to be inside), but even greater responsibility falls on Hamas for blatantly violating the rules of warfare. In fact, Hamas is guilty of war crimes if it knowingly housed weapons on any protected property.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

Both of them are equally at fault, nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't make Israel's actions any less horrible, animalistic, and vile. Period.

Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant.

The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member, and dropping a couple ton bomb to take out the rocket launch site.


it's ok none were americans or western allies (but since those guys still aren't americans they count as 1/2 a person)

The loss of civilians is regretable but the situation is that Hamas was using the school as a weapons platform.

The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member, and dropping a couple ton bomb to take out the rocket launch site.




You trying to pick a fight? The loss of civilians is regretable but the situation is that Hamas was using the school as a weapons platform.whelp guess we just have to take israel's word for it then and their word that bombing or shelling said school was the only way to stop these hamas members that may or may not even have existed was to bomb the **** out of a school

still waiting for your response to israel's admission that hamas didn't fire into israel during the ceasefire

e: gonna go play some mass effect while you find a way to absolve israel of guilt
e2: decided against mass effect imma play nwn2 insteadstill waitin

whelp guess we just have to take israel's word for it then and their word that bombing or shelling said school was the only way to stop these hamas members that may or may not even have existed was to bomb the **** out of a school


They have a much better track record for honesty than Hamas does putting it mildly.



still waitin

And I'm waiting to hear the rest of it that you've neglected to mention, seriously Israel isn't out to try to annihilate the Palestinians. I heard about a few of the times that Israel supposedly violated cease fires only for it to turn out the news media neglected to mention rockets being launched into Israel, or suicide bombers being snuck into Israel by Hamas, etc.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

Both of them are equally at fault, nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't make Israel's actions any less horrible, animalistic, and vile. Period.
I won't argue with the fact that it's vile, horrible, and any other adjective of negative sentiment that we can come up with. The sentiment is that Hamas is in the right and Israel is in the wrong--I'm arguing they both are. Israel has enough intel on the entire world to be able to make a strike when kids aren't around. Hamas should know better than to put arms in a protected target, thereby removing the protection.

If you're talking about what's right, then they both suck at doing that. If you're talking about what's legal, then Hamas screwed themselves.

seriously Israel isn't out to try to annihilate the Palestinians.
:lol:

I heard about a few of the times that Israel supposedly violated cease fires only for it to turn out the news media neglected to mention rockets being launched into Israel, or suicide bombers being snuck into Israel by Hamas, etc.
Source.

uhh garfield the guy who said that hamas didn't fire any rockets into israel was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regev), not some reporter. and the idf is no more credible or moral than hamas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html)

:lol:


Source.

He doesn't have one, and if he does, it's a conservative blog, or Fox News. As per usual.
I won't argue with the fact that it's vile, horrible, and any other adjective of negative sentiment that we can come up with. The sentiment is that Hamas is in the right and Israel is in the wrong--I'm arguing they both are. Israel has enough intel on the entire world to be able to make a strike when kids aren't around. Hamas should know better than to put arms in a protected target, thereby removing the protection.

Okay? I never said that both weren't in the wrong. They are, this is obvious. But America supports Israel. Why? Who the **** knows anymore. But it needs to end, because both sides, BOTH SIDES, are completely and totally wrong. Israel is not defending itself. They're creating a massacre out of hate. Plain and simple.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html)

"Nope. Those sources are lies. The IDF lie to us. This is liberal slander. Fox News will tell us what is irrefutably true!"

Honestly, why do you bother when you know the reaction?

If you have issues with moderation, see an admin--don't discuss it here as that's off-topic. If you are publicly musing why someone is allowed to post here, it's off topic. Commentary about what the mods are doing with a particular member is off-topic. Some of you are outright flaming each other--cool it off please. Further discussion along these lines will earn you an infraction. If you don't want to hear what someone has to say, put them on your ignore list, which you can access from your user cp.

IDF is about as pro-Israeli as Hamas can get pro-Palestinian. Neither are unbiased. I would not put IDF above shading the truth on reporting--they aren't letting anyone in to report on Gaza at this point (or very few if they started recently), which really makes me suspicious of Israeli intentions on 'reporting the truth'.

The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member

Funny, I heard these exact words come out of an Israeli ambassador's mouth last week on FoxNews.

_EW_

uhh garfield the guy who said that hamas didn't fire any rockets into israel was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regev), not some reporter. and the idf is no more credible or moral than hamas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html)


Let me be perfectly blunt, I would trust any of the European News sources about as far as I could throw an semi truck. When it comes to Israel, the BBC, Guardian, etc. have absolutely no credibility at all. They have a history of dishonesty when it comes to Israel, and I'm going to post up some stuff from bloggers, but in this case considering the BBC and others ended up having to admit that the photos were bogus (and these bloggers are who caught them at it, it's rather hard to dispute these bloggers on this issue).

littlegreenfootballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22204_BBC_Admits_Engaging_in_Staged_Photos)
In this case this source has been proven to be accurate, since we're talking about the 2006, Israeli/Lebanon Conflict

Anyways there is a long history of outright dishonesty from the European Media.
Karsenty came to court loaded for bear, with trolleyfuls of documentation, including a 90-page ballistics report. Out of it all, the court also trained its sights on a telling 2005 Le Figaro opinion piece by two establishment journalists, Denis Jeambar, then editor in chief of L'Express (France's answer to Newsweek), and Daniel Leconte, head of news documentaries at the state-run French-German cultural channel, Arte (a kind of French-German PBS), both unlikely participants in this undignified scrum. Jeambar and Leconte, egged on by a former Le Monde journalist, Luc Rosenzweig, who had taken a great interest in the case and started writing about it for the small Israeli news outfit Mena, asked France 2 as early as 2004 to show them the original raw rushes. Acknowledging Jeambar and Leconte's weight in the French establishment, France 2 had done for them what it had refused to do for countless others and had shown them, and Rosenzweig, the 27 minutes of film.

What happened then was typical of the cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof behavior even powerful French figures display when faced with any kind of violation of the unspoken but well-understood order of precedence obtaining among the elite here. While Jeambar and Leconte took their time to ponder what they'd seen, Rosenzweig had the nerve to file a piece for Mena describing the tape's scenes of staging just before the fatal shooting. You could see Palestinians being carried on stretchers into ambulances, then coming out again unharmed, all in a kind of carnival atmosphere, with kids throwing stones and making faces at the camera, despite what was supposed to be a tense situation. The tape showed occasional gunshots, not continuous firing. From the general horsing around captured on film by Abu Rahmeh, Mena concluded that the whole scene must have been staged.

Their being preempted by Rosenzweig incensed Leconte and Jeambar, who expressed their displeasure in the 2005 op-ed in the center-right Le Figaro. They spent so much of the piece denouncing Rosenzweig, his gall in reporting first on what he'd seen in the company of his betters, and the conclusions he'd dared draw independently, that it was easy to overlook a key fact: [u]Jeambar and Leconte themselves not only conceded that the tape showed Palestinians stage-managing various shots and horsing around, they also described joking about those very scenes with the France 2 executives who were screening the tape for them.

All of those present at the screening-illustrious visitors and France 2 executives alike, the op-ed recounted-had ended up in full agreement that it was impossible to determine where the bullets had come from, but that it was highly unlikely that they could have come from the Israeli garrison. More crucially, Jeambar and Leconte also had caught Enderlin lying (or, as they kindly put it, "extrapolating"): "There was no 'unbearable agony' of the child anywhere on the tape," they wrote. "It wasn't edited out, it simply did not exist."

The Figaro piece had little impact when it was published, but it turned out to be one of the crucial elements in Karsenty's challenge to France 2's version of events. He won his appeal. The ruling, handed down on May 21, stated that he had acted in good faith as a media commentator and that he had presented a "coherent body of evidence," although the hoax could not be definitively proven. The judge also noted "inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin," whose appearance in court was his first sworn testimony in the matter.
-- Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/284xawsb.asp?pg=2)

The first French Court seemed to be concerned with convicting this blogger, and the appeals court threw out the libel conviction and said that the guy provided enough evidence to throw the France 2's story into serious question.

Then we have Adnan Hajj's doctored photos used by Reuters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy)

All are miraculously pristinely clean and apparently untouched by the devastation they purportedly survived. (Reuters might want to check its freelancers' expenses for unexplained Toys R Us purchases.)--http://www.journalism.wisc.edu) (http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/j202/discussion_spring07/wk8_lat_photos.pdf)

Furthermore the BBC was forced to admit later that there was a problem with those photographs: BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/trusting_photos.html)

Several other Conservative Bloggers had a field day back in 2006,
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/08/another-bogus-photo/)


By the way, this stuff is pretty hard to dispute because the news agencies like Reuters, New York Times, BBC, etc. were all forced to admit that the photos were bogus and the scenes were staged.

Funny, I heard these exact words come out of an Israeli ambassador's mouth last week on FoxNews.


Yeah I heard it too, and thing is the Israeli Ambassador is right.

You have made this argument multiple times in this thread and have made your point here in this post. It is unnecessary to say the same thing multiple times, and further posting of this same argument will be deleted as redundant and subject to sanctions according the Kavar's rules. --Jae

wordsan expert dodge, sir. blame reporters even though i posted a video of the israeli prime minister's spokesman admitting no rockets were fired into israel by hamas during the ceasefire. and haaretz is israeli.

an expert dodge, sir. blame reporters even though i posted a video of the israeli prime minister's spokesman admitting no rockets were fired into israel by hamas during the ceasefire. and haaretz is israeli.

And what intell were the Israelis acting on, considering their Intelligence Agency is considered the best in the world. The Israelis have no motive to just start lobbing shells into Gaza or driving tanks in for no reason, it's a waste of money unless there is a pretty good reason.

And what intell were the Israelis acting on, considering their Intelligence Agency is considered the best in the world. The Israelis have no motive to just start lobbing shells into Gaza or driving tanks in for no reason, it's a waste of money unless there is a pretty good reason.because they're not the angels you make them out to be and as i've said before, they're just as genocidal as hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50C1Z920090113)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A)

whoops none of those were fox news or littlegreenfootballs links just links to israeli sources and reuters

Several other Conservative Bloggers had a field day back in 2006,

:lol:

because they're not the angels you make them out to be and as i've said before, they're just as genocidal as hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50C1Z920090113)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A)

whoops none of those were fox news or littlegreenfootballs links just links to israeli sources and reuters

And reuters has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Your stating that Israel wants to commit genocide doesn't take into account the fact the Israelis are bending over backward to avoid civilian casualties. Furthermore the links from those bloggers were largely concerning issues from 2000-2006 to show a pattern as to why reuters is not a credible source when it comes to Israel.

If they had intel on a weapons depot or something like that they may have acted to take it out, they wouldn't launch shells into Gaza to target civilians indiscriminately which you're implying.

And reuters has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Your stating that Israel wants to commit genocide doesn't take into account the fact the Israelis are bending over backward to avoid civilian casualties.Okay.

Then I'd like you to explain this:
Total Israeli Civilian Casualties: 3
Total Gazan Civilian Casualites: ~700
If they had intel on a weapons depot or something like that they may have acted to take it out, they wouldn't launch shells into Gaza to target civilians indiscriminately which you're implying.Really? I suppose that white phosphorous, which its intended use is for a smokescreen, but white phosphorous causes extreme burns, with an almost napalm-esque effect. You know those air bursts that look like fireworks pellets raining down on the ground? That's white phosphorous. It's not an "OK" weapon to use, at all.

Okay.

Then I'd like you to explain this:
Total Israeli Civilian Casualties: 3
Total Gazan Civilian Casualites: ~700

Possibilities:


That members of Hamas would have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn at point-blank range. -- unlikely
Divine Intervention -- Certainly possible, given the number of rockets fired
Israel actually evactuates its Citizens to shelters to try to protect them from harm while Hamas deliberately puts their weapons among civilians to maximize civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.


I'd say it would be 3, with possibly divine intervention as well.


Really? I suppose that white phosphorous, which its intended use is for a smokescreen, but white phosphorous causes extreme burns, with an almost napalm-esque effect. You know those air bursts that look like fireworks pellets raining down on the ground? That's white phosphorous. It's not an "OK" weapon to use, at all.

To be frank, based on Reuter's, BBC's, etc. track record, the usage of phosphorous by the Israelis has likely been greatly exagerated, if they used it at all.

Oh a video of interest: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1231430391)

And reuters has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Your stating that Israel wants to commit genocide doesn't take into account the fact the Israelis are bending over backward to avoid civilian casualties. Furthermore the links from those bloggers were largely concerning issues from 2000-2006 to show a pattern as to why reuters is not a credible source when it comes to Israel.

If they had intel on a weapons depot or something like that they may have acted to take it out, they wouldn't launch shells into Gaza to target civilians indiscriminately which you're implying.i also cited haaretz and that video had a woman from b'tselem, an israeli human rights group. your "all european sources are unreliable" argument is irrelevant.

and israel has admitted to using phosphorous weapons in the past and there have been numerous reports of them using it this time around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0114/p07s01-wome.html)
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/israel-stop-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june09/ceasefire_01-19.html)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866575577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

also white phosphorous can cause organ failure.

That members of Hamas would have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn at point-blank range. -- unlikelyIf they're using sucky weaponry, which they are, then I guess it would be possible.
Divine Intervention -- Certainly possible, given the number of rockets firedSeeing as how many times the Israelites have generally screwed up everything for the past several thousand years, I doubt that God really really cares about them too much, especially when they throw his teachings out of the window repeatedly.
Israel actually evactuates its Citizens to shelters to try to protect them from harm while Hamas deliberately puts their weapons among civilians to maximize civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.You want to know why there are so many Gazan causalities? Israel takes the bait, probably with the knowledge that there were civilians in the area.

To be frank, based on Reuter's, BBC's, etc. track record, the usage of phosphorous by the Israelis has likely been greatly exaggerated, if they used it at all.Alright. That sure explains why we're seeing several air bursts which most definitely contain white phosphorous. It also explains why Gazan doctors are seeing patients with burns extremely similar to white phosphorous burns. Oh, and I also think that you're throwing the truth out the window to strengthen your hate of the mainstream and liberal media.

Oh a video of interest: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1231430391So?) we've known about this for quite some time. Why do you think Israel goes for it? Since your claim that Israel has the world's leading intelligence agency is true, I suppose this means that Israel knows that civilians are being used as human shields. And if that is true, then Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. :carms:

If they're using sucky weaponry, which they are, then I guess it would be possible.

And fired over 6000+ of them... Seriously, there is another factor in this than just lousy weapons.


Seeing as how many times the Israelites have generally screwed up everything for the past several thousand years, I doubt that God really really cares about them too much, especially when they throw his teachings out of the window repeatedly.

Does the Six Day War ring any bells or Yom Kippur?


You want to know why there are so many Gazan causalities? Israel takes the bait, probably with the knowledge that there were civilians in the area.

Israel faces a choice in each situation, and Israel is smaller than the State of Massachusetts, they have nowhere to retreat.


Alright. That sure explains why we're seeing several air bursts which most definitely contain white phosphorous. It also explains why Gazan doctors are seeing patients with burns extremely similar to white phosphorous burns. Oh, and I also think that you're throwing the truth out the window to strengthen your hate of the mainstream and liberal media.

Show me the burn victims, seriously, there are other chemicals that can create air bursts or smoke screens. Furthermore, I've already shown that Reuters used pictures that were photoshopped to add fake smoke in 2006. It isn't that much of a strech to assume the same situation now only in video.



So? we've known about this for quite some time. Why do you think Israel goes for it? Since your claim that Israel has the world's leading intelligence agency is true, I suppose this means that Israel knows that civilians are being used as human shields. And if that is true, then Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. :carms:

And here is the choice the Israelis face, let them continue shooting rockets and pray one of them doesn't hit a family member, a neighbor, a friend, or take the rocket launch site out. That's the situation they're in, this isn't Canada we're talking about here where a bunch of inaccurate rockets are more likely to hit a Moose than a person.

Israel faces a choice in each situation, and Israel is smaller than the State of Massachusetts, they have nowhere to retreat.this is one of the most ridiculous arguments in this thread. to suggest that israel would ever need to retreat anywhere shows near complete ignorance of the situation there.

Possibilities:


That members of Hamas would have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn at point-blank range. -- unlikely
Divine Intervention -- Certainly possible, given the number of rockets fired
Israel actually evactuates its Citizens to shelters to try to protect them from harm while Hamas deliberately puts their weapons among civilians to maximize civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.


I'd say it would be 3, with possibly divine intervention as well.

You want to talk about nonsensical religious dogma, you go to the appropriate place for it, which is not here. You want to talk about the facts, then let's talk about the facts.

There has been link after link for sources given in this topic that portray a clear and present use of overkill in Israel's "defense". They are murdering Hamas citizens, regardless of whether or not Hamas has put them in a position to be murdered. Both sides in this are WRONG. Israel is no more justified in this, and I am so sick and tired of you saying otherwise, and when proof to the contrary is brought to you, ignoring it as false, when all you ever do is post biased sources to serve your backwards logic.

GAH.

Congratulations. You just topped Bush in the biggest line of bull**** I have ever heard. You want to talk about nonsensical religious dogma, you go to the appropriate place for it, which is not here. You want to talk about the facts, then let's talk about the facts.

There has been link after link for sources given in this topic that portray a clear and present use of overkill in Israel's "defense". They are murdering Hamas citizens, regardless of whether or not Hamas has put them in a position to be murdered. Both sides in this are WRONG. Israel is no more justified in this, and I am so sick and ****ing tired of you saying otherwise, and when proof to the contrary is brought to you, ignoring it as false, when all you ever do is post biased sources to serve your backwards logic.

GAH.

source?

Does the Six Day War ring any bells or Yom Kippur?Yeah, and Israel was loaded with French and American weapons, along with an entire nation of recruits to send in.
Israel faces a choice in each situation, and Israel is smaller than the State of Massachusetts, they have nowhere to retreat.They don't need to; they have plenty ofweapons and soldiers to send out to do their bidding, even if it means going into a scrap of land, kill several hundred, and then get out. My point is, the Israelis are using excessive force against relatively minor attacks.
Show me the burn victims, seriously, there are other chemicals that can create air bursts or smoke screens. Furthermore, I've already shown that Reuters used pictures that were photoshopped to add fake smoke in 2006. It isn't that much of a strech to assume the same situation now only in video.Oh. Okay:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00469/Phosphorous_469695a.jpg)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5549100.ece)
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833585-overview)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/gaza-phosphorus-israel)

And here is the choice the Israelis face, let them continue shooting rockets and pray one of them doesn't hit a family member, a neighbor, a friend, or take the rocket launch site out. That's the situation they're in, this isn't Canada we're talking about here where a bunch of inaccurate rockets are more likely to hit a Moose than a person.Israel's response: Start a massive military incursion, actively bombing heavily populated areas, and using overall excessive force against rockets that have killed only three civilians.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Israel is using this petty excuse of rocket attacks that don't do jack for an unofficial genocide. Gaza is now in ruins, with hundreds of innocents killed and thousands wounded. Gaza in now without power or cleans water, which means that disease will spread fast, due to the catalyst: rotting corpses. Since the good majority of the cities are now in ruins, thousands are now homeless. Food is also scarce, which means starvation, and which means that people will get desperate, including acts of violence to save their family.

Israel, on the other hand, is living a life of luxury, replenished from the spoils of war. Yet while millions of Israelis are living a relatively normal life, only a few kilometers away humans are in Hell.

this is one of the most ridiculous arguments in this thread. to suggest that israel would ever need to retreat anywhere shows near complete ignorance of the situation there.

I actually know what I'm talking about, its called a range limit on those rockets, you're proposing Israel should just sit there and let rockets rain down on civilians all day. Because they don't have a place they can move the civilians to.


@ PastramiX
I may not be a doctor but that doesn't look burns unless they are cigarette burns or something like that. That and possibly some wounding to the face by debris... Again where are the burns?

I actually know what I'm talking about, its called a range limit on those rockets, you're proposing Israel should just sit there and let rockets rain down on civilians all day. Because they don't have a place they can move the civilians to.no i'm proposing they dont kill civilians.

and you clearly know what you're talking about. (http://start.csail.mit.edu/images/texas-maps/middle_east_and_asia/israel_pol01.jpg)

no i'm proposing they dont kill civilians.

and you clearly know what you're talking about. (http://start.csail.mit.edu/images/texas-maps/middle_east_and_asia/israel_pol01.jpg)

Actually I do, assuming the rockets have a range of 40 miles, it would be able to hit the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv, based off the map you provided. Combined with Hezbollah in Lebanon whom would also fire rockets with impunity they have nowhere to evacuate civilians to and their rockets supposedly have the longer range..

The fact that Hamas hasn't killed more people isn't from a lack of trying.

@ PastramiX
I may not be a doctor but that doesn't look burns unless they are cigarette burns or something like that. That and possibly some wounding to the face by debris... Again where are the burns?Oh, you know, those little black marks by his eyes; they're completely charred. He's also now completely blind due to the intense heat of the burning phosphorous essentially vaporizing his irises.

And the fact that you're playing down civilian injuries is pathetic, at best. That's as bad as saying "He's not injured enough to receive treatment or compensation."

Actually I do, assuming the rockets have a range of 40 miles, it would be able to hit the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv, based off the map you provided. Combined with Hezbollah in Lebanon whom would also fire rockets with impunity they have nowhere to evacuate civilians to and their rockets supposedly have the longer range..hmm yes absolutely nowhere. and it's not like they're given billions of dollars worth of weapons every year to fight against impoverished palestinians with little in the way of weapons or defenses.

also have a video http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/19/gaza-phosphorus-victim)

Oh, you know, those little black marks by his eyes; they're completely charred. He's also now completely blind due to the intense heat of the burning phosphorous essentially vaporizing his irises.

And the fact that you're playing down civilian injuries is pathetic, at best. That's as bad as saying "He's not injured enough to receive treatment or compensation."

http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html)


Read it, that gives a good reason why I am hesitant to trust the picture at all. The term is Pallywood, I'd recommend you look it up.

And the injuries in the video don't look like burns, they do look like he got hit by something, but not phosphorous, I've seen burns before and they didn't look like what would have been sustained.

http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html)


Read it, that gives a good reason why I am hesitant to trust the picture at all. The term is Pallywood, I'd recommend you look it up.Okay, so my entire argument stating that thousands of innocent civilians are suffering in unimaginable ways is completely worthless to you? All because of so-called "sensationalist reporting" that is in fact reporting the truth? So, I guess those burn victims were faking it. I suppose there wasn't war in Gaza. I think that the liberal media is lying. I think this is just a dream, and I need to wake up. But I won't. Cause I like it.

http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html)


Read it, that gives a good reason why I am hesitant to trust the picture at all. The term is Pallywood, I'd recommend you look it up.

And the injuries in the video don't look like burns, they do look like he got hit by something, but not phosphorous, I've seen burns before and they didn't look like what would have been sustained.

Straight question, requesting a straight answer:

What does the (mainstream) media have to do with any of this when jmac has provided you sources that come from the IDF or another Israeli?

Or are you just attempting to derail the thread? I'd recommend (:dozey:) you stop that. It's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're trying to peacefully discuss.

_EW_

Okay, so my entire argument stating that thousands of innocent civilians are suffering in unimaginable ways is completely worthless to you? All because of so-called "sensationalist reporting" that is in fact reporting the truth? So, I guess those burn victims were faking it. I suppose there wasn't war in Gaza. I think that the liberal media is lying. I think this is just a dream, and I need to wake up. But I won't. Cause I like it.

No, I'm saying they have a history of lieing, and I backed it up with evidence.

Do I think people have died, yes, is it saddening yes, but I refuse to lay blame on a country for defending itself. There wouldn't be a tenth the Palestinian casualties if Hamas didn't deliberately shoot off rockets from schools when they were in session.

Straight question, requesting a straight answer:

What does the (mainstream) media have to do with any of this when jmac has provided you sources that come from the IDF or another Israeli?


See the earlier article I brought up about that kid being killed in 2000, Israel took responsibility in the beginning and then it turned out that based on evidence it was highly improbable that the kid was hit with Israeli bullets... Oh and it took a court case to bring that information out.


Or are you just attempting to derail the thread? I'd recommend (:dozey:) you stop that. It's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're trying to peacefully discuss.


I'm not trying to derail the topic, I've posted evidence to support my statements which call into question the veracity of your sources and some also show that Israel tends to take responsibility for stuff whether they actually were or not.

No, I'm saying they have a history of lieing, and I backed it up with evidence.

Do I think people have died, yes, is it saddening yes, but I refuse to lay blame on a country for defending itself. There wouldn't be a tenth the Palestinian casualties if Hamas didn't deliberately shoot off rockets from schools when they were in session.except it's already been proven by every news organization except your beloved blogs that israel broke the ceasefire and therefore cannot be defending itself.

yes haaretz, b'tselem, and ehud olmert's spokesman are incredibly unreliable.

and have a fox news article about the use of white phosphorus by israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html)

Okay, this is completely irrelevant to the topic, FYI. We're talking about how many civilians are suffering right now, and you're actively denying that, to suit your own ideals. But hey, I suppose ignorance is bliss, eh?

Okay, this is completely irrelevant to the topic, FYI. We're talking about how many civilians are suffering right now, and you're actively denying that, to suit your own ideals. But hey, I suppose ignorance is bliss, eh?

No, I'm questioning how many people actually died and the accuracy of the reporting.

Also the Fox News article said that:

All were victims of a single white phosphorus shell dropped on their home, survivors and doctors said. -- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html)


It also says:

Israel says it only used the explosive as flares or smoke screens to protect tanks during heavy combat, and does its best to avoid civilian injuries. The international Red Cross said last week that it had no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent was being used improperly or illegally. -- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html)

If anything this story looks like the shell didn't go off when it was supposed to and that the Israelis army was rather upset that it landed where it did. That's a lot different from deliberately targetting civilians like what you're implying.

I'm not trying to derail the topic, I've posted evidence to support my statements which call into question the veracity of your sources and some also show that Israel tends to take responsibility for stuff whether they actually were or not.

So now Israel's lying about being at fault?

yes haaretz, b'tselem, and ehud olmert's spokesman are incredibly unreliable.

and have a fox news article about the use of white phosphorus by israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html)
:iceburn:

_EW_