FREE TAPATALK APP

gumboot · 7th January 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

But you'd trust a statement from Israel/IDF. Even given thir record?

I trust a statement from an independent journalist and from Palestinian civilians who witnessed the attack. Do you even read my posts? Actually, don't answer that, I already know the answer.

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Ugh... so much stupidity. Okay people, let's clear up some facts please.

First, intelligence.

The IDF knew the GPS position of all UN facilities. The UN gave them to them. The IDF does not have 24/7 live coverage of every square inch of Gaza. If you think that you're a moron.

You'd be a moron to think that Israel didn't know 1,000 people went to hide in that school.

Quote:

In all liklihood the Israeli fire was counter-battery fire. Counter-battery fire uses computers to map the ballistic arc of incoming rounds and very accurately identifies the source of the fire, so that counter-fire can be directed immediately against the target. It is highly unlikely that the Israelis firing back at the militants ever had visual contact with their target.

Really? now we know Israel was lying about their being enemy fire from that school. it's apparently admitted their wasn't any enemy fire from that school

Quote:

The hits on the school were tactical in nature - an immediate response by a local commander to an immediate threat. This wasn't an airstrike planned days in advance by a team of high-ranking staff.

Ahh well that makes the deaths of all those palestinians OK I suppose?

Quote:

Even assuming the local commander had any thoughts about the UN facility, it wouldn't surprise me if these sort of strikes are encouraged to teach the UN a lesson.

What vile people attack 1,000 civilians in order to teach the UN a 'lesson' ?

Quote:

Let's be absolutely 100% clear on the facts of the matter here, people.

What BS. "facts"??? You havent' posted any facts. only conjecture

Quote:

Firstly, independent journalists are reporting that militants were either inside or immediately adjacent to the UN site. This is neither IDF nor Hamas propaganda.

Assuming this is true, several facts are immediately put into place:

1) The placement of the mortar team in or adjacent to the UN compound is a violation of the Laws of International Armed Conflict, and a warcrime.

2) The UN's failure to prevent the placement of mortar teams in or adjacent to their compound is a violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict, and a warcrime. Further, it makes the UN a party to the conflict, and therefore a legitimate target.

3) As confirmed by the UN and by the IDF, Palestinian militants have a history of using UN positions for their attacks. This worsens point 2) substantially.

4) Israel's return fire against incoming fire is a perfectly legitimate and legal military action.

You are all barking up the wrong tree here people. The serious issue and concern here is neither the IDF attack on the school, nor the Hamas use of the school. The far, far, more serious issue here is the UN's failure to prevent use of their position. I cannot overemphasise how serious the UN's breach is in this regard, and I find the media lack of attention on it quite disturbing.

What a load of BS.

I've never seen such a lame attempt at absolving Israel of a serious war crime.

Now you tell me if the situation was reversed and it was Israel citizens who were killed while sheltering in a school, you'd take the same attitude. Yeah riggggggghhhht!!

WildCat · 7th January 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Well the UN has revealed that Israel has admitted in private that there was no enemy fire coming from the school. And apparently, although I haven't seem the report myself yet, but I was just told that Israel has also admitted it publicly.

So that kind of urinates on this this thread's premise that Hamas wants civilian casualties.

I will provide links when they become available

I bet you won't.

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I bet you won't.

Why?

They are starting to come up in google as we speak .......

here's one. there will more. many more. Now how much did you want to bet?

http://www.topnews.in/un-israel-admi...school-2106368

WildCat · 7th January 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Why?

They are starting to come up in google as we speak .......

here's one. there will more. many more. Now how much did you want to bet?

http://www.topnews.in/un-israel-admi...school-2106368

That's the same nonsense boloboffin was posting about.

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

That's the same nonsense boloboffin was posting about.

Well it's not nonsense is it? Israel has admitted that there was no enemy fire from the school. or are you accusing the UN of lying?

Will you accuse Israel of lying when the links are provided of their admission?

Or will you just shrink away from this specific issue and find something else to BS about?

Or ...... will you actually have the courage to hold your hands up and admit you were wrong?

We'll see.

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Well it's not nonsense is it? Israel has admitted that there was no enemy fire from the school. or are you accusing the UN of lying?

Will you accuse Israel of lying when the links are provided of their admission?

Or will you just shrink away from this specific issue and find something else to BS about?

Or ...... will you actually have the courage to hold your hands up and admit you were wrong?

We'll see.

Quote:

"The Israeli army is briefing diplomats privately that the militant fire from Jablia yesterday did not come from inside the UNRWA school compound, but from the outside

This is the most idiotic case of semantics I've read in a while.

TFT - why are you upset? Your own source claims Hamas was firing from outside the school. Outside, as in immediately outside of the school, not outside and miles away.

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDB87

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy
And what vile propaganda ...

"Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there. "

What is vile about that statement and what makes it propaganda? Has Hamas ever booby-trapped a building in Gaza?

And you keep going on about Hamas propaganda. Could you provide an example of 'Hamas Propaganda'? You know, to hide your bias.

Incase you missed it, TFT.

gumboot · 7th January 2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

You'd be a moron to think that Israel didn't know 1,000 people went to hide in that school.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Really? now we know Israel was lying about their being enemy fire from that school. it's apparently admitted their wasn't any enemy fire from that school

Who cares what Israel has said?

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Ahh well that makes the deaths of all those palestinians OK I suppose?

No death in war is ever "OK".

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

What vile people attack 1,000 civilians in order to teach the UN a 'lesson' ?

No one attacked any civilians.

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

What BS. "facts"??? You havent' posted any facts. only conjecture

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

What a load of BS.

That's all you have to say? No attempt to argue against my interpretation of International Law? give it a shot. Since everything I said is apparently "a load of BS" it should be a pretty easy task proving me wrong.

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

I've never seen such a lame attempt at absolving Israel of a serious war crime.

War crimes were committed in this instance, but not by Israel.

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Now you tell me if the situation was reversed and it was Israel citizens who were killed while sheltering in a school, you'd take the same attitude. Yeah riggggggghhhht!!

Not at all. I couldn't give a flying fig about Israel. I care about people being accurate about the facts, and not spewing propaganda and nonsense. You will note I categorically rejected a claim of anti-Israeli propaganda by Reuters in another thread. You appear to be utterly incapable of actually looking at this particular subject objectively. As long as you spew your mindless garbage, I will continue to correct you.

My interest in this topic is very simple. Most of the people debating it appear to have an appallingly bad grasp of international law, yet are quick to make claims of illegal action by one side or the other. I seek to educate the ignorant and ill-informed.

Kestrel · 7th January 2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

TFT - why are you upset? Your own source claims Hamas was firing from outside the school. Outside, as in immediately outside of the school, not outside and miles away.

According to the BBC, the Israeli artillery hit outside the school.

Quote:

At least 40 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza, UN officials have said.

Independent observers have confirmed that militants were firing from immediately outside the school according to a post earlier in this thread. (A link to that confirmation would be appreciated.)

The UN is probably correct in claiming that no militants were inside the compound. But that does not preclude militants being right outside the walls where the artillery shells hit.

WildCat · 7th January 2009, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Well it's not nonsense is it? Israel has admitted that there was no enemy fire from the school. or are you accusing the UN of lying?

It came from just outside the school. Which is where the IDF returned the fire. It's also where the casualties were:

Quote:

Israeli mortar shells killed as many as 40 Palestinians, among them women and children, outside a United Nations school in Gaza on Tuesday where they were taking refuge in the 11th day of the conflict.

I've bolded the word that is the key to comprehending this story.

Now, you were saying?

gumboot · 7th January 2009, 04:41 PM

Just to confirm, the strikes didn't hit in the school itself:

Quote:

John Ging, head of Gaza operations for the agency [UN], confirmed that at least 30 people died and 55 were injured, five critically, when three artillery tank shells landed at the perimeter of the school. He said the "indications are that these strikes originated from Israeli weapons".

...

Most of the casualties in the attack in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya, where some 350 people had taken refuge, were outside the school premises though there were some inside as well, Ging said.

...

Two residents who spoke to an AP reporter by phone said the two brothers [two men named by Israel as amongst the dead] were known to be low-level Hamas militants. They said a group of militants - one of them said four - were firing mortar shells from near the school. An Israeli shell targeted the men, but missed and they fled, the witnesses said. Then a further three shells landed nearby, exploding among civilians, they said.

The three Israeli mortar shells that crashed down on the perimeter of the school struck at midafternoon local time, when many people in the densely populated camp were outside getting some fresh air, thinking an area around a school was safe.

...

New Zealand Herald

WildCat · 7th January 2009, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Independent observers have confirmed that militants were firing from immediately outside the school according to a post earlier in this thread. (A link to that confirmation would be appreciated.)

Right here:

Quote:

A young witness from Jabaliya, Ibrahim Amen, 16, said that he had seen one of the militants, whom he identified as Abu Khaled Abu Asker, in the area of the school right before the attack.

Ibrahim said he saw the militant after he answered calls for volunteers to pile sand around the camp “to help protect the resistance fighters.” Ibrahim went to pile sand near the school with his brother, Iyad, 20, who was then injured by the Israeli mortar fire.

a_unique_person · 7th January 2009, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Parky why is it that you are always trying to stand up for the terrorist group Hamas?

I haven't seen him "stand up" for Hamas once. Why the false dichotomy?

boloboffin · 7th January 2009, 06:00 PM

Let's be very clear about this.

1. It was reported widely yesterday that Israel had fired mortar shells at a U.N.-run school and killed at least 40 people. At the time, the military said that Hamas fighters had launched mortar shells from the school.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010603504.html

Notice that is not some whacked-out little website. That is the Washington Post. The story is all over. The headline says:

Quote:

Israel Hits U.N.-Run School in Gaza
40 Die at Shelter That Military Says Hamas Was Firing From

2. The story that I then quoted in this thread was from CNN. Again, not some CT website hating on Israel. It quoted, not a Hamas spokesman, not a U.N. spokesman, but AN ISRAELI SPOKESMAN pulling back on the "fired from the school" story.

All of Wildcat's yammering on about what Hamas has done, and how much the U.N. is untrustworthy is a straw man. I'm quoting respected sources who are talking to the Israelis.

3. Now comes a better picture of the situation on the ground and the Hamas fighters were NOT in the school and the Israeli mortars did NOT hit the school. Welcome to the fog of war.

But that does not change what Israel was saying before and what they are saying now. When they thought they had hit the school, they said Hamas was firing on them from the school. Now they have adjusted their story - to reality.

4. This is not coming from a defend-Hamas-at-all-costs perspective from me. Indeed, I'm more coming from the position of a plague on both their houses. Plenty of people are demonstrating the shortcomings of Hamas in this matter. Don't take my pointing out Israel's shortcomings as a defense of Hamas.

5. Wildcat, your first response to me ended in a very long straw man but it began with an outrageous smear of me and I demand an apology from you. Quit using cowardly smears immediately. It is not conducive to a civil discussion.

6. It is obvious that Israel is taking every effort they can to minimize civilian casualities. It does them no good at all to kill civilians, and if they did want to kill civilians, they could turn the Gaza Strip into a smoking ruin. That's why the first story about shooting at the school made no sense, especially since now we know the school is still standing. Some idiot threw out an excuse to some erroneous story, and now Israel is backtracking and Hamas is making the most of it. The lesson for an official spokesman should be: keep your yap shut until you know the facts on the ground.

Texas · 7th January 2009, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

You are honestly declaring that the UN is willing to actively support a terrorist organisation in order to bring down the state of Israel? This is not far off 9/11 Conspiracy nonesense.

As for the topic itself, it is distressing how little the newspapers over here in Britain are reporting on the allegation that Hamas were firing from the school. The Independent makes no mention of it on their front page, once again making a mockery of their name.

Yes I do believe that the UN is capable of just that. The head of that mission that was hit isn't even in Gaza it is staffed by locals and it is entirely plausible that they allowed Hamas to operate there. They have allowed UN ambulances to be used as troop transports on several occasions.

Someone up thread stated that the Guardian is reporting it and that unidentified locals confirmed that Hamas was firing from there.

gumboot · 7th January 2009, 06:05 PM

This inside/outside stuff appears to be semantics. The Hamas members were at the perimeter of the school, and Israel hit the perimeter of the school. Outside or inside depends on your own interpretation, but I don't think any of this seriously changes the scenario.

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

But that does not change what Israel was saying before and what they are saying now. When they thought they had hit the school, they said Hamas was firing on them from the school. Now they have adjusted their story - to reality.

And the significance of that is...?

The IDF could still claim they thought Hamas was firing from inside the school, regardless of the clarification that they were, infact, firing outside of it. Once a civilian building is used militarily, it's immunity is forfeit, and it can be legally targetted.

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

And the significance of that is...?

The IDF could still claim they thought Hamas was firing from inside the school, regardless of the clarification that they were, infact, firing outside of it. Once a civilian building is used militarily, it's immunity is forfeit, and it can be legally targetted.

We've seen this vile view before in this forum.

So let's get this straight? A couple of hamas fighters fire from a building, and even though the building contains 1,000 civilians it's OK to fire artillery at the building?

I guess you're one of those people who hold what's deemed 'legal' as a higher precedence than innocent human life?

In Germany 70 years ago it was illegal to be of a certain race. I guess you would agree that those innocent people were legitimate targets as well wouldn't you?

You views have been well exposed. And any decent person would highly condemn them.

Quad4_72 · 7th January 2009, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I haven't seen him "stand up" for Hamas once. Why the false dichotomy?

He said he wanted Hamas to kill many Israelis.

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

This inside/outside stuff appears to be semantics. The Hamas members were at the perimeter of the school, and Israel hit the perimeter of the school. Outside or inside depends on your own interpretation, but I don't think any of this seriously changes the scenario.

You're right. It doesn't. It was a disgusting act by Israel, a war crime no less, which ever way you look at it.

Israel knows Hamas fight close to civilians. But it fires anyway. Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Instead of sitting cowardly in fortified tanks firing shells.

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

So let's get this straight? A couple of hamas fighters fire from a building, and even though the building contains 1,000 civilians it's OK to fire artillery at the building?

Hamas uses a civilian building as a military instillation - what are our options?

1) Flush it with artillery, take the civilian losses and bad press, move on.

2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with grenades and small arms.

3) Your turn

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

You're right. It doesn't. It was a disgusting act by Israel, a war crime no less, which ever way you look at it.

You were saying something about legality? Which article of the Geneva Convention, International Law, or any Law of War, did Israel violate?

Quote:

Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to.

Such as?

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

You were saying something about legality? Which article of the Geneva Convention, International Law, or any Law of War, did Israel violate?

A crime against humanity.

And I see you've once again proved your precedence for laws on paper to the sanctity of innocent human life. Vile!!!

I take it you would also recognize laws made by people like Hitler then? I notice you avoid my analogy.

Tin Foil Timothy · 7th January 2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

Hamas uses a civilian building as a military instillation - what are our options?

1) Flush it with artillery, take the civilian losses and bad press, move on.

2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with grenades and small arms.

3) Your turn

2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with small arms. Grenades would be a bit stupid if the place was full of civilians.

I can see you would choose option 1] - Israel chose option 1] as it doesn't care about Palestinian civilians. Do you care about Palestinian civilians? You haven't shown much humanity for them so far. Legal losses you implied.

gumboot · 7th January 2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

You're right. It doesn't. It was a disgusting act by Israel, a war crime no less, which ever way you look at it.

Israel knows Hamas fight close to civilians. But it fires anyway. Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Instead of sitting cowardly in fortified tanks firing shells.

With every post you make, you simply dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of ignorance and stupidity. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I can help you climb out any time you want.

gumboot · 7th January 2009, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with small arms. Grenades would be a bit stupid if the place was full of civilians.

Not only would this garner far greater international outrage than a few shells (with yourself no doubt at the front of the queue of useful idiots) but it would result in substantially greater civilian death toll.

You seriously do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you?

fullflavormenthol · 7th January 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Instead of sitting cowardly in fortified tanks firing shells.

As opposed to what? Have snipers posted to attempt to kill the one dude in the middle of a bunch of civilians? Despite the fact that this sniper would get killed? I mean you are saying that 1.) Hamas uses civilians as human shields, but 2.) Israel should only target the Hamas personel? When in fact Hamas is engaging in war crimes by using human sheilds, and launching attacks from civilian areas knowing that the resulting counter attack will cause the deaths of civilians. Would you have Israel merely sit back and allow their own people to be murdered waiting for the magical technology that would allow them to kill the one Hamas fighter in the group of civilians?

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

A crime against humanity.

Could you explain to me why the Geneva Convention exists?

Quote:

And I see you've once again proved your precedence for laws on paper to the sanctity of innocent human life. Vile!!!

Throw out the Geneva Convetion, an innocent person may be killed in a war.

Quote:

I take it you would also recognize laws made by people like Hitler then? I notice you avoid my analogy.

Texas · 7th January 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Not only would this garner far greater international outrage than a few shells (with yourself no doubt at the front of the queue of useful idiots) but it would result in substantially greater civilian death toll.

You seriously do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you?

Hey it worked on "24"

IDB87 · 7th January 2009, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

You seriously do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you?

Was it Parky or TFT who wanted to see higher IDF casulaties? If TFT, his support for the idiocy of assaulting a Hamas stronghold without armor or air support makes sense in a bizzare, face palming, need to drink more heavily, kind of way.

gtc · 7th January 2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

Was it Parky or TFT who wanted to see higher IDF casulaties? If TFT, his support for the idiocy of assaulting a Hamas stronghold without armor or air support makes sense in a bizzare, face palming, need to drink more heavily, kind of way.

That's just the sort of thing Hitler would write if he were alive today and writing on a discussion forum*!

*Actually he would probably write something like 'Mein Gott, why am I alive in the year 2009 and writing on a discussion forum, and in English too'.

Thunder · 7th January 2009, 07:35 PM

If I had my way, when this is all over, Hamas will be tried for war crimes due to their attacks on Israeli civilians and the use of Palestinian civilians and human sheilds.

And, the IDF will be accused of crimes against humanity, for their blockade of Gaza, and mass killing of innocent civilians in Gaza.

Both sides have done bad things..both sides should face justice.

Pardalis · 7th January 2009, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

What a load of BS.

You always have that line ready, but never any extended explanation ever follows.

WildCat · 7th January 2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

5. Wildcat, your first response to me ended in a very long straw man but it began with an outrageous smear of me and I demand an apology from you. Quit using cowardly smears immediately. It is not conducive to a civil discussion.

I shouldn't have accused you of truther tactics and I'm sorry for that. However, a reading of your own link says taht:

Quote:

Tal said two known Hamas gunmen were killed in the Israeli strike just outside the school, in addition to members of a mortar squad.

...a large number of the casualties were women and children who had gathered at the school because they considered it a haven from the fighting. At the time of the attack, people were standing outside the gate of the school, where hundreds of families had sought shelter.

Every report I have seen was quite clear that the Israeli mortars and Palestinian casualties were just outside the school. You were nitpicking over an IDF statement where the spokesman said they took fire from inside the school, and another IDF figure who didn't know exactly which wall the casualties occurred at. But remember, the IDF does not communicate in English and some things will get lost in the translation when making a hasty press release. You then said they were backpedaling, when it was really just an issue of semantics.

As for the UN having lost all credibility in this incident I stand by that 100%. As I see it, there are just a few possibilities to explain their behavior.

1.They are thoroughly incapable of protecting their assets from Islamic insurgents and actually expect Israel to grant safe haven to any militants that use them as a fire base.

2. Their operations in Gaza are completely infiltrated by Hamas and other allied groups who are giving the UN false information which the UN naively accepts without question.

3. The UN is actually protecting Hamas and its allies for reasons only they can know.

Neither scenario bodes well for the UN as a viable and neutral arbiter of conflicts in this region.

If there's more possibilities (besides all/some of the above) that explains their behavior I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Feel free to offer any up.

I realize my tone is a bit harsh but I am very angry at the way the UN is conducting themselves in this conflict.

Puppycow · 7th January 2009, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

What a load of BS.

Why are people so gullible/blind to the propaganda of the IDF yet can easily recocognise the propaganda of Hamas?

There's no evidence that armed Hamas fighters were in the school.

The Jerusalem Post article even uses footage from a completely different incident to bolster this news article. but in fairness does say,

And what vile propaganda ...

"Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there. "

Read this ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...k-1230046.html

THE PATHOLOGY OF ROBERT FISK

I'm sure that Fisk thinks Hamas' "brutality is entirely the product of others."

Puppycow · 8th January 2009, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Robert Fisk, the guy who said this?:

Quite the journalist...

Oh my. Good catch.

a_unique_person · 8th January 2009, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Not only would this garner far greater international outrage than a few shells (with yourself no doubt at the front of the queue of useful idiots) but it would result in substantially greater civilian death toll.

I don't know how much more outrage there could be.

The principle that civilians deaths and casualties don't matter when there is a greater goal in mind seems to be a dangerous one, and no different to the to the question raised in the OP.

As for the OP, why would Israel subsidise poor people to live in those towns in missile rage of the Gaza strip? Encouraging people to live in Sderot doesn't seem to make sense.

gtc · 8th January 2009, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

As for the OP, why would Israel subsidise poor people to live in those towns in missile rage of the Gaza strip? Encouraging people to live in Sderot doesn't seem to make sense.

Do they?

Israel is very small; I'm not sure how much of it isn't within rocket range from one area or another.

Meadmaker · 8th January 2009, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Let's be absolutely 100% clear on the facts of the matter here, people.

Firstly, independent journalists are reporting that militants were either inside or immediately adjacent to the UN site. This is neither IDF nor Hamas propaganda.

There's something that strikes me as odd about the above post.

Earlier, it was said by several people that the Israeli government does not allow independent journalists into the war zone. Is that correct?

If that's the case, then whatever independent journalists are reporting is, in fact, either IDF or Hamas propoganda, because there is no way to verify the information independently.

7th January 2009, 03:26 PM	#81
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy But you'd trust a statement from Israel/IDF. Even given thir record? I trust a statement from an independent journalist and from Palestinian civilians who witnessed the attack. Do you even read my posts? Actually, don't answer that, I already know the answer.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th January 2009, 03:26 PM	#82
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by gumboot Ugh... so much stupidity. Okay people, let's clear up some facts please. First, intelligence. The IDF knew the GPS position of all UN facilities. The UN gave them to them. The IDF does not have 24/7 live coverage of every square inch of Gaza. If you think that you're a moron. You'd be a moron to think that Israel didn't know 1,000 people went to hide in that school. Quote: In all liklihood the Israeli fire was counter-battery fire. Counter-battery fire uses computers to map the ballistic arc of incoming rounds and very accurately identifies the source of the fire, so that counter-fire can be directed immediately against the target. It is highly unlikely that the Israelis firing back at the militants ever had visual contact with their target. Really? now we know Israel was lying about their being enemy fire from that school. it's apparently admitted their wasn't any enemy fire from that school Quote: The hits on the school were tactical in nature - an immediate response by a local commander to an immediate threat. This wasn't an airstrike planned days in advance by a team of high-ranking staff. Ahh well that makes the deaths of all those palestinians OK I suppose? Quote: Even assuming the local commander had any thoughts about the UN facility, it wouldn't surprise me if these sort of strikes are encouraged to teach the UN a lesson. What vile people attack 1,000 civilians in order to teach the UN a 'lesson' ? Quote: Let's be absolutely 100% clear on the facts of the matter here, people. What BS. "facts"??? You havent' posted any facts. only conjecture Quote: Firstly, independent journalists are reporting that militants were either inside or immediately adjacent to the UN site. This is neither IDF nor Hamas propaganda. Assuming this is true, several facts are immediately put into place: 1) The placement of the mortar team in or adjacent to the UN compound is a violation of the Laws of International Armed Conflict, and a warcrime. 2) The UN's failure to prevent the placement of mortar teams in or adjacent to their compound is a violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict, and a warcrime. Further, it makes the UN a party to the conflict, and therefore a legitimate target. 3) As confirmed by the UN and by the IDF, Palestinian militants have a history of using UN positions for their attacks. This worsens point 2) substantially. 4) Israel's return fire against incoming fire is a perfectly legitimate and legal military action. You are all barking up the wrong tree here people. The serious issue and concern here is neither the IDF attack on the school, nor the Hamas use of the school. The far, far, more serious issue here is the UN's failure to prevent use of their position. I cannot overemphasise how serious the UN's breach is in this regard, and I find the media lack of attention on it quite disturbing. What a load of BS. I've never seen such a lame attempt at absolving Israel of a serious war crime. Now you tell me if the situation was reversed and it was Israel citizens who were killed while sheltering in a school, you'd take the same attitude. Yeah riggggggghhhht!!
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Last edited by Tin Foil Timothy; 7th January 2009 at 03:41 PM.

7th January 2009, 03:31 PM	#84
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by WildCat I bet you won't. Why? They are starting to come up in google as we speak ....... here's one. there will more. many more. Now how much did you want to bet? http://www.topnews.in/un-israel-admi...school-2106368
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

7th January 2009, 03:39 PM	#86
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by WildCat That's the same nonsense boloboffin was posting about. Well it's not nonsense is it? Israel has admitted that there was no enemy fire from the school. or are you accusing the UN of lying? Will you accuse Israel of lying when the links are provided of their admission? Or will you just shrink away from this specific issue and find something else to BS about? Or ...... will you actually have the courage to hold your hands up and admit you were wrong? We'll see.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

7th January 2009, 03:59 PM	#89
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy You'd be a moron to think that Israel didn't know 1,000 people went to hide in that school. I fail to see how this is relevant. Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Really? now we know Israel was lying about their being enemy fire from that school. it's apparently admitted their wasn't any enemy fire from that school Who cares what Israel has said? Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Ahh well that makes the deaths of all those palestinians OK I suppose? No death in war is ever "OK". Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy What vile people attack 1,000 civilians in order to teach the UN a 'lesson' ? No one attacked any civilians. Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy What BS. "facts"??? You havent' posted any facts. only conjecture Wrong. Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy What a load of BS. That's all you have to say? No attempt to argue against my interpretation of International Law? give it a shot. Since everything I said is apparently "a load of BS" it should be a pretty easy task proving me wrong. Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy I've never seen such a lame attempt at absolving Israel of a serious war crime. War crimes were committed in this instance, but not by Israel. Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Now you tell me if the situation was reversed and it was Israel citizens who were killed while sheltering in a school, you'd take the same attitude. Yeah riggggggghhhht!! Not at all. I couldn't give a flying fig about Israel. I care about people being accurate about the facts, and not spewing propaganda and nonsense. You will note I categorically rejected a claim of anti-Israeli propaganda by Reuters in another thread. You appear to be utterly incapable of actually looking at this particular subject objectively. As long as you spew your mindless garbage, I will continue to correct you. My interest in this topic is very simple. Most of the people debating it appear to have an appallingly bad grasp of international law, yet are quick to make claims of illegal action by one side or the other. I seek to educate the ignorant and ill-informed.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th January 2009, 03:26 PM	#83
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Well the UN has revealed that Israel has admitted in private that there was no enemy fire coming from the school. And apparently, although I haven't seem the report myself yet, but I was just told that Israel has also admitted it publicly. So that kind of urinates on this this thread's premise that Hamas wants civilian casualties. I will provide links when they become available I bet you won't.

7th January 2009, 03:35 PM	#85
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Why? They are starting to come up in google as we speak ....... here's one. there will more. many more. Now how much did you want to bet? http://www.topnews.in/un-israel-admi...school-2106368 That's the same nonsense boloboffin was posting about.

7th January 2009, 03:47 PM	#87
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Well it's not nonsense is it? Israel has admitted that there was no enemy fire from the school. or are you accusing the UN of lying? Will you accuse Israel of lying when the links are provided of their admission? Or will you just shrink away from this specific issue and find something else to BS about? Or ...... will you actually have the courage to hold your hands up and admit you were wrong? We'll see. Quote: "The Israeli army is briefing diplomats privately that the militant fire from Jablia yesterday did not come from inside the UNRWA school compound, but from the outside This is the most idiotic case of semantics I've read in a while. TFT - why are you upset? Your own source claims Hamas was firing from outside the school. Outside, as in immediately outside of the school, not outside and miles away.

7th January 2009, 03:51 PM	#88
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Quote: Originally Posted by IDB87 Quote: Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy And what vile propaganda ... "Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there. " What is vile about that statement and what makes it propaganda? Has Hamas ever booby-trapped a building in Gaza? And you keep going on about Hamas propaganda. Could you provide an example of 'Hamas Propaganda'? You know, to hide your bias. Incase you missed it, TFT.

7th January 2009, 04:09 PM	#90
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,227	Originally Posted by IDB87 TFT - why are you upset? Your own source claims Hamas was firing from outside the school. Outside, as in immediately outside of the school, not outside and miles away. According to the BBC, the Israeli artillery hit outside the school. Quote: At least 40 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza, UN officials have said. Independent observers have confirmed that militants were firing from immediately outside the school according to a post earlier in this thread. (A link to that confirmation would be appreciated.) The UN is probably correct in claiming that no militants were inside the compound. But that does not preclude militants being right outside the walls where the artillery shells hit.
	Last edited by Kestrel; 7th January 2009 at 04:24 PM.

7th January 2009, 04:32 PM	#91
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Well it's not nonsense is it? Israel has admitted that there was no enemy fire from the school. or are you accusing the UN of lying? It came from just outside the school. Which is where the IDF returned the fire. It's also where the casualties were: Quote: Israeli mortar shells killed as many as 40 Palestinians, among them women and children, outside a United Nations school in Gaza on Tuesday where they were taking refuge in the 11th day of the conflict. I've bolded the word that is the key to comprehending this story. Now, you were saying?

7th January 2009, 04:41 PM	#92
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Just to confirm, the strikes didn't hit in the school itself: Quote: John Ging, head of Gaza operations for the agency [UN], confirmed that at least 30 people died and 55 were injured, five critically, when three artillery tank shells landed at the perimeter of the school. He said the "indications are that these strikes originated from Israeli weapons". ... Most of the casualties in the attack in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya, where some 350 people had taken refuge, were outside the school premises though there were some inside as well, Ging said. ... Two residents who spoke to an AP reporter by phone said the two brothers [two men named by Israel as amongst the dead] were known to be low-level Hamas militants. They said a group of militants - one of them said four - were firing mortar shells from near the school. An Israeli shell targeted the men, but missed and they fled, the witnesses said. Then a further three shells landed nearby, exploding among civilians, they said. The three Israeli mortar shells that crashed down on the perimeter of the school struck at midafternoon local time, when many people in the densely populated camp were outside getting some fresh air, thinking an area around a school was safe. ... New Zealand Herald
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th January 2009, 04:48 PM	#93
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Kestrel Independent observers have confirmed that militants were firing from immediately outside the school according to a post earlier in this thread. (A link to that confirmation would be appreciated.) Right here: Quote: A young witness from Jabaliya, Ibrahim Amen, 16, said that he had seen one of the militants, whom he identified as Abu Khaled Abu Asker, in the area of the school right before the attack. Ibrahim said he saw the militant after he answered calls for volunteers to pile sand around the camp “to help protect the resistance fighters.” Ibrahim went to pile sand near the school with his brother, Iyad, 20, who was then injured by the Israeli mortar fire.

7th January 2009, 04:49 PM	#94
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,467	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Parky why is it that you are always trying to stand up for the terrorist group Hamas? I haven't seen him "stand up" for Hamas once. Why the false dichotomy?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

7th January 2009, 06:00 PM	#95
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Let's be very clear about this. 1. It was reported widely yesterday that Israel had fired mortar shells at a U.N.-run school and killed at least 40 people. At the time, the military said that Hamas fighters had launched mortar shells from the school. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010603504.html Notice that is not some whacked-out little website. That is the Washington Post. The story is all over. The headline says: Quote: Israel Hits U.N.-Run School in Gaza 40 Die at Shelter That Military Says Hamas Was Firing From 2. The story that I then quoted in this thread was from CNN. Again, not some CT website hating on Israel. It quoted, not a Hamas spokesman, not a U.N. spokesman, but AN ISRAELI SPOKESMAN pulling back on the "fired from the school" story. All of Wildcat's yammering on about what Hamas has done, and how much the U.N. is untrustworthy is a straw man. I'm quoting respected sources who are talking to the Israelis. 3. Now comes a better picture of the situation on the ground and the Hamas fighters were NOT in the school and the Israeli mortars did NOT hit the school. Welcome to the fog of war. But that does not change what Israel was saying before and what they are saying now. When they thought they had hit the school, they said Hamas was firing on them from the school. Now they have adjusted their story - to reality. 4. This is not coming from a defend-Hamas-at-all-costs perspective from me. Indeed, I'm more coming from the position of a plague on both their houses. Plenty of people are demonstrating the shortcomings of Hamas in this matter. Don't take my pointing out Israel's shortcomings as a defense of Hamas. 5. Wildcat, your first response to me ended in a very long straw man but it began with an outrageous smear of me and I demand an apology from you. Quit using cowardly smears immediately. It is not conducive to a civil discussion. 6. It is obvious that Israel is taking every effort they can to minimize civilian casualities. It does them no good at all to kill civilians, and if they did want to kill civilians, they could turn the Gaza Strip into a smoking ruin. That's why the first story about shooting at the school made no sense, especially since now we know the school is still standing. Some idiot threw out an excuse to some erroneous story, and now Israel is backtracking and Hamas is making the most of it. The lesson for an official spokesman should be: keep your yap shut until you know the facts on the ground.

7th January 2009, 06:03 PM	#96
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus You are honestly declaring that the UN is willing to actively support a terrorist organisation in order to bring down the state of Israel? This is not far off 9/11 Conspiracy nonesense. As for the topic itself, it is distressing how little the newspapers over here in Britain are reporting on the allegation that Hamas were firing from the school. The Independent makes no mention of it on their front page, once again making a mockery of their name. Yes I do believe that the UN is capable of just that. The head of that mission that was hit isn't even in Gaza it is staffed by locals and it is entirely plausible that they allowed Hamas to operate there. They have allowed UN ambulances to be used as troop transports on several occasions. Someone up thread stated that the Guardian is reporting it and that unidentified locals confirmed that Hamas was firing from there.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th January 2009, 06:05 PM	#97
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	This inside/outside stuff appears to be semantics. The Hamas members were at the perimeter of the school, and Israel hit the perimeter of the school. Outside or inside depends on your own interpretation, but I don't think any of this seriously changes the scenario.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th January 2009, 06:09 PM	#98
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Originally Posted by boloboffin But that does not change what Israel was saying before and what they are saying now. When they thought they had hit the school, they said Hamas was firing on them from the school. Now they have adjusted their story - to reality. And the significance of that is...? The IDF could still claim they thought Hamas was firing from inside the school, regardless of the clarification that they were, infact, firing outside of it. Once a civilian building is used militarily, it's immunity is forfeit, and it can be legally targetted.

7th January 2009, 06:26 PM	#99
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by IDB87 And the significance of that is...? The IDF could still claim they thought Hamas was firing from inside the school, regardless of the clarification that they were, infact, firing outside of it. Once a civilian building is used militarily, it's immunity is forfeit, and it can be legally targetted. We've seen this vile view before in this forum. So let's get this straight? A couple of hamas fighters fire from a building, and even though the building contains 1,000 civilians it's OK to fire artillery at the building? I guess you're one of those people who hold what's deemed 'legal' as a higher precedence than innocent human life? In Germany 70 years ago it was illegal to be of a certain race. I guess you would agree that those innocent people were legitimate targets as well wouldn't you? You views have been well exposed. And any decent person would highly condemn them.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

7th January 2009, 06:30 PM	#100
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by a_unique_person I haven't seen him "stand up" for Hamas once. Why the false dichotomy? He said he wanted Hamas to kill many Israelis.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th January 2009, 06:30 PM	#101
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by gumboot This inside/outside stuff appears to be semantics. The Hamas members were at the perimeter of the school, and Israel hit the perimeter of the school. Outside or inside depends on your own interpretation, but I don't think any of this seriously changes the scenario. You're right. It doesn't. It was a disgusting act by Israel, a war crime no less, which ever way you look at it. Israel knows Hamas fight close to civilians. But it fires anyway. Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Instead of sitting cowardly in fortified tanks firing shells.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

7th January 2009, 06:34 PM	#102
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy So let's get this straight? A couple of hamas fighters fire from a building, and even though the building contains 1,000 civilians it's OK to fire artillery at the building? Hamas uses a civilian building as a military instillation - what are our options? 1) Flush it with artillery, take the civilian losses and bad press, move on. 2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with grenades and small arms. 3) Your turn

7th January 2009, 06:35 PM	#103
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy You're right. It doesn't. It was a disgusting act by Israel, a war crime no less, which ever way you look at it. You were saying something about legality? Which article of the Geneva Convention, International Law, or any Law of War, did Israel violate? Quote: Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Such as?
	Last edited by IDB87; 7th January 2009 at 06:37 PM.

7th January 2009, 06:41 PM	#104
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by IDB87 You were saying something about legality? Which article of the Geneva Convention, International Law, or any Law of War, did Israel violate? A crime against humanity. And I see you've once again proved your precedence for laws on paper to the sanctity of innocent human life. Vile!!! I take it you would also recognize laws made by people like Hitler then? I notice you avoid my analogy.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

7th January 2009, 06:44 PM	#105
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by IDB87 Hamas uses a civilian building as a military instillation - what are our options? 1) Flush it with artillery, take the civilian losses and bad press, move on. 2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with grenades and small arms. 3) Your turn 2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with small arms. Grenades would be a bit stupid if the place was full of civilians. I can see you would choose option 1] - Israel chose option 1] as it doesn't care about Palestinian civilians. Do you care about Palestinian civilians? You haven't shown much humanity for them so far. Legal losses you implied.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

7th January 2009, 06:44 PM	#106
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy You're right. It doesn't. It was a disgusting act by Israel, a war crime no less, which ever way you look at it. Israel knows Hamas fight close to civilians. But it fires anyway. Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Instead of sitting cowardly in fortified tanks firing shells. With every post you make, you simply dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of ignorance and stupidity. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I can help you climb out any time you want.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th January 2009, 06:47 PM	#107
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy 2) Send in an infantry company, assault the building, flush Hamas out with small arms. Grenades would be a bit stupid if the place was full of civilians. Not only would this garner far greater international outrage than a few shells (with yourself no doubt at the front of the queue of useful idiots) but it would result in substantially greater civilian death toll. You seriously do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you?
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th January 2009, 06:48 PM	#108
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Israel could use more precision and targeted methods to kill Hamas fighters if it really wanted to. Instead of sitting cowardly in fortified tanks firing shells. As opposed to what? Have snipers posted to attempt to kill the one dude in the middle of a bunch of civilians? Despite the fact that this sniper would get killed? I mean you are saying that 1.) Hamas uses civilians as human shields, but 2.) Israel should only target the Hamas personel? When in fact Hamas is engaging in war crimes by using human sheilds, and launching attacks from civilian areas knowing that the resulting counter attack will cause the deaths of civilians. Would you have Israel merely sit back and allow their own people to be murdered waiting for the magical technology that would allow them to kill the one Hamas fighter in the group of civilians?
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

7th January 2009, 06:50 PM	#109
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy A crime against humanity. Could you explain to me why the Geneva Convention exists? Quote: And I see you've once again proved your precedence for laws on paper to the sanctity of innocent human life. Vile!!! Throw out the Geneva Convetion, an innocent person may be killed in a war. Quote: I take it you would also recognize laws made by people like Hitler then? I notice you avoid my analogy.

7th January 2009, 06:50 PM	#110
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by gumboot Not only would this garner far greater international outrage than a few shells (with yourself no doubt at the front of the queue of useful idiots) but it would result in substantially greater civilian death toll. You seriously do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you? Hey it worked on "24"
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th January 2009, 06:54 PM	#111
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,451	Originally Posted by gumboot You seriously do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you? Was it Parky or TFT who wanted to see higher IDF casulaties? If TFT, his support for the idiocy of assaulting a Hamas stronghold without armor or air support makes sense in a bizzare, face palming, need to drink more heavily, kind of way.
	Last edited by IDB87; 7th January 2009 at 06:55 PM.

7th January 2009, 07:06 PM	#112
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by IDB87 Was it Parky or TFT who wanted to see higher IDF casulaties? If TFT, his support for the idiocy of assaulting a Hamas stronghold without armor or air support makes sense in a bizzare, face palming, need to drink more heavily, kind of way. That's just the sort of thing Hitler would write if he were alive today and writing on a discussion forum! Actually he would probably write something like 'Mein Gott, why am I alive in the year 2009 and writing on a discussion forum, and in English too'.

7th January 2009, 07:35 PM	#113
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	If I had my way, when this is all over, Hamas will be tried for war crimes due to their attacks on Israeli civilians and the use of Palestinian civilians and human sheilds. And, the IDF will be accused of crimes against humanity, for their blockade of Gaza, and mass killing of innocent civilians in Gaza. Both sides have done bad things..both sides should face justice.

7th January 2009, 08:18 PM	#114
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy What a load of BS. You always have that line ready, but never any extended explanation ever follows.

7th January 2009, 08:24 PM	#115
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by boloboffin 5. Wildcat, your first response to me ended in a very long straw man but it began with an outrageous smear of me and I demand an apology from you. Quit using cowardly smears immediately. It is not conducive to a civil discussion. I shouldn't have accused you of truther tactics and I'm sorry for that. However, a reading of your own link says taht: Quote: Tal said two known Hamas gunmen were killed in the Israeli strike just outside the school, in addition to members of a mortar squad. ...a large number of the casualties were women and children who had gathered at the school because they considered it a haven from the fighting. At the time of the attack, people were standing outside the gate of the school, where hundreds of families had sought shelter. Every report I have seen was quite clear that the Israeli mortars and Palestinian casualties were just outside the school. You were nitpicking over an IDF statement where the spokesman said they took fire from inside the school, and another IDF figure who didn't know exactly which wall the casualties occurred at. But remember, the IDF does not communicate in English and some things will get lost in the translation when making a hasty press release. You then said they were backpedaling, when it was really just an issue of semantics. As for the UN having lost all credibility in this incident I stand by that 100%. As I see it, there are just a few possibilities to explain their behavior. 1.They are thoroughly incapable of protecting their assets from Islamic insurgents and actually expect Israel to grant safe haven to any militants that use them as a fire base. 2. Their operations in Gaza are completely infiltrated by Hamas and other allied groups who are giving the UN false information which the UN naively accepts without question. 3. The UN is actually protecting Hamas and its allies for reasons only they can know. Neither scenario bodes well for the UN as a viable and neutral arbiter of conflicts in this region. If there's more possibilities (besides all/some of the above) that explains their behavior I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Feel free to offer any up. I realize my tone is a bit harsh but I am very angry at the way the UN is conducting themselves in this conflict.