Hamas Wants Civilian Casualties

[WildCat]

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.

It's not like Gaza was journalist-free prior to the conflict.

 

[Pardalis]

Oh my. Good catch.

Not that it devalues his opinion entirely, but it does raise questions about his rational thinking and fact-checking capabilities.

Noticed how trutherism is never far away when discussing these issues?

 

[Patriot4life]

Obviously, Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a deplorable crime that has traumatized residents of Sderot, and is an act of terrorism.

On the otherhand, Israel is not much better and it can be argued that they disregard the death of civilians also. read quote below:

I think former president Jimmy Carter's article in the Wpost tells a more objective story than they have been running.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html

From another Wpost article:

The latest atrocities in that war have included the grisly discovery of at least 15 bodies and several emaciated children in Gaza after the Israeli military had prevented ambulances from reaching the site for four days. Four starving children were found lying next to their dead mothers, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. [Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2009]

this is so very sad, to think of these small starving children, not knowing what to do, lying next to their dead mothers.

I will humbly admit that I am not fully versed on the history of the region, but from my limited understanding it seems as though the different opinions expressed evolve from varing historical starting points. i.e. looking at the conflict from a starting point of Hamas firing rockets into Israel.

I am sure others can adress this more thouroughly, and I would like to hear the different perspectives.

here is a video from the real news, which I found through my regular news source that adresses this point: and the follow up video regarding international law:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/010609a.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/010709b.html

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

In a post by Patriot4life:

The latest atrocities in that war have included the grisly discovery of at least 15 bodies and several emaciated children in Gaza after the Israeli military had prevented ambulances from reaching the site for four days. Four starving children were found lying next to their dead mothers, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. [Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2009]

What makes that case more disturbing, at least for me, is the following snip: International committee of the Red Cross

Israeli soldiers posted at a military position some 80 meters away from this house ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do. There were several other positions of the Israel Defense Forces nearby as well as two tanks.

"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, the ICRC's head of delegation for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. "The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestine Red Crescent to assist the wounded."

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

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?

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? What kind of silly thinking would say there would greater international outrage had Israel attempted to individually take out the hamas fighters, thus keeping the civilian casualties at a bare minimum or even zero, compared to the outrage of a disproportionate artillery shelling?

You are a useful idiot to Israel.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

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.

Ahh the big super-hero sweeps in to save us all. Gimme a break. You are just making yourself look foolish. Your claims of intending to educate are a cloak hiding someone who can only answer his failings with personal attacks.

Look, if we wanted some education we'd be approaching someone who actually had both the credibility and ability to give some.

I call something a crime in these situations when an action is committed without regard for the hurt of innocent civilians. That takes precedence over some law written on a piece of paper.

If there's an International law that says a building holding civilians is still a legitimate target for attack because of certain qualifications then that law is null and void IMO. and ti should be ignored.

Laws are there to protect humans, not the other away around.

 

[gtc]

Here is an instructive Jerusalem Post article

Soldiers from the Paratrooper's Brigade operating in the northern Gaza Strip uncovered a map prepared by Hamas...

Halamish said that the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. On the map, a brown dot is marked next to a mosque representing a nearby sniper position.

It is a short article so I can't quote much of it but the rest is very informative.

This is a no lose situation for Hamas. If Israel doesn't go after the militants who are hiding among the civillians they will suffer casualties. If Israel does go after the militants then the usual chorus in the West will use this fact to condemn Israel yet again.

 

[gtc]

What kind of silly thinking would say there would greater international outrage had Israel attempted to individually take out the hamas fighters, thus keeping the civilian casualties at a bare minimum or even zero, compared to the outrage of a disproportionate artillery shelling?

You are a useful idiot to Israel.

Because (with the usual caveat that I am no expert) we doubt that it would have led to significantly fewer civillian casualties.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Was it Parky or TFT who wanted to see higher IDF casulaties?

Wasn't me dude.

Btw - Wasn't it you who wanted to see more Palestinian civilians killed? Or was was it someone else

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.

My oh my, IDB87 has got so confused during his rush to type out a thinly veiled personal attack as completely lost all sense of grammer. And noticed how a couple of hamas fighter is turned into a "hamas stronghold"

The soundbites!" IDB87 should write for the Israeli propaganda department.

 

[gumboot]

I call something a crime in these situations when an action is committed without regard for the hurt of innocent civilians. That takes precedence over some law written on a piece of paper.

In other words, not only do you know nothing about armed conflict, but you also have not even the most basic understanding of law.

A crime, by definition, is a violation of a law. If no law was broken, no crime can be committed. Words cannot be redefined on a whim for your own purposes.

Do you actually have anything to add to this discussion, other than insults? I've demonstrated why you're wrong. You haven't countered a single point. When are you going to try?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Because (with the usual caveat that I am no expert) we doubt that it would have led to significantly fewer civillian casualties.

'we' ?? Who is we?

Oh you mean that little bunch of cowardly Israel apologists who resort to personal attacks an lies when their arguments are shown to be BS.

Gotcha!!

 

[gumboot]

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? What kind of silly thinking would say there would greater international outrage had Israel attempted to individually take out the hamas fighters, thus keeping the civilian casualties at a bare minimum or even zero, compared to the outrage of a disproportionate artillery shelling?

You didn't say Israel should " individually take out the hamas fighters, thus keeping the civilian casualties at a bare minimum or even zero".

You said they should have assaulted the Hamas position with unsupported infantry. For those who understand armed conflict, they understand that this would almost certainly cause far worse bloodshed than firing a few shells at the Hamas position.

Your "individually take out the hamas fighters" without civilian death is a fantasy, and nothing more. Even with crack special forces teams and days of planning, the chances of preventing any civilian deaths would be slim.

This is all, of course, without taking into account the substantially higher death toll that would be inflicted on the IDF by following such a tactic.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

In other words, not only do you know nothing about armed conflict, but you also have not even the most basic understanding of law.

A crime, by definition, is a violation of a law. If no law was broken, no crime can be committed. Words cannot be redefined on a whim for your own purposes.

Words cannot have their definition restricted to bolster your lame arguments. Calling something a 'crime' becuase it is considered a wrong is common usage English.

And in any case a 'Crime against Humanity' is not only a phrase to describe the above, it is also a a recognised crime under international law.

So not only do you appear clueless about armed conflict you relly know nothing about law either.

Do you actually have anything to add to this discussion, other than insults? I've demonstrated why you're wrong. You haven't countered a single point. When are you going to try?

I'm still laughing at your claim to educate us. Your arguments are weak, your claim that hadn to handcombat with the militants them selves could be more harmful to the civilians than the indescrimate artillery shelling is total fantasy and is totally absurd.


no doubt you'll hurl back some personal insults. Yawn.

 

[gumboot]

'we' ?? Who is we?

Oh you mean that little bunch of cowardly Israel apologists who resort to personal attacks an lies when their arguments are shown to be BS.

Gotcha!!

I don't think anyone has actually resorted to a personal attack here except you. Calling your arguments stupid is not a personal attack. Your arguments are, in fact, stupid.

Calling you stupid would be a personal attack, but I don't think anyone has done that.

Your dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you as an Israeli apologist, however, is not only a personal attack but a classic debating tactic for the defeated.

Your posts are becoming increasingly aggressive and lacking in substance. I think you need to take a break. Go for a walk or something. This isn't important enough that you should get worked up about it.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You didn't say Israel should " individually take out the hamas fighters, thus keeping the civilian casualties at a bare minimum or even zero".

You said they should have assaulted the Hamas position with unsupported infantry. For those who understand armed conflict, they understand that this would almost certainly cause far worse bloodshed than firing a few shells at the Hamas position.

Your "individually take out the hamas fighters" without civilian death is a fantasy, and nothing more. Even with crack special forces teams and days of planning, the chances of preventing any civilian deaths would be slim.

I never claimed that no civilian deaths would occur,. I said it was a possibility.

but anyone who understands Armed armed conflict would know that this method would cause substantially few civilians casualities than lobbing indescriminate artillery fire at the zone

This is all, of course, without taking into account the substantially higher death toll that would be inflicted on the IDF by following such a tactic.

Well exactly. That's what it's all about isn't. 1 IDF Soldier is worth a 100 Palestinian civilians. and the cowardly IDF would rather sit in the protection of armed tanks and fire artllery, and who cares anout the lives of 1,000 frightened civilians are hiding in the building.

And this is the whole underlying agenda of Israel and it's apologists like yourself and others. It's a whole ideology of "Who cares about the palestinian civilians"

We had a few vile views on this forum who have said that a building containing many civilians is still a legitimate target because one enemy fighter is firing from there.

We've even had racist views from 'wildcat' and 'Just thinking'

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I don't think anyone has actually resorted to a personal attack here except you. Calling your arguments stupid is not a personal attack. Your arguments are, in fact, stupid.

Calling you stupid would be a personal attack, but I don't think anyone has done that.

Your dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you as an Israeli apologist, however, is not only a personal attack but a classic debating tactic for the defeated.

Your posts are becoming increasingly aggressive and lacking in substance. I think you need to take a break. Go for a walk or something. This isn't important enough that you should get worked up about it.

Thanks for the patronization and the lecture.

It's laughable you talk about lack of substance, when you're posts contain exactly that.

You have completely failed to try and fool the thread that you are here to educate.

Your arguments are the one's that are stupid. Very stupid. but carry on your tit for tat exchange why don't ya.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Prove that the UN school was used as a fighting position.

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?

It's interesting that someone asking for proof that the UN school was being used as a fighting position, causes someone to reply

"why are you always standing up for the terrorist group Hamas?"

This is the typical 1 bit thinking of those indoctrinated into the ideology of Good v. Evil ( notice how Hamas are called a terrorist group, yet the IDF/Israel are not called a terrorist group )

Anyone not showing 100% commitment to the side that is 'Good' is automatically place in the other side of 'evil'

These people can't comprehend that there is mroe than two sides. unfortunately the indoctrination only permits two sides...

"you are either with us or with the terrorists!"

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

THE PATHOLOGY OF ROBERT FISK

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

Ahhh, a classic old tactic. Denigrate the mental capabilities of those who are a danger to your own propaganda. Robert Fisk speaks a lot of sense and is unusual in the mainstream media in that he does speak against the tide.

Dewunkers, who can't rely upon proper evidence often resort to mocking the mental states of twoofers. Yet the fail to understand that it's just as easy to mock the mental capabilities of the average dewunker

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

What a load of BS.

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

Contradictory to your post here pardalis I see
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4328968&postcount=60

I call BS on BS. Quoting it in isolation is fooling no one. If I see BS I will in the majority of cases provide explanation as to why.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

What kind of media indoctrination causes some people to think all Palestinians are Islamist militant martyrs?

For me? It was right around the time Gaza elected a terrorist group that wants to kill me for being a Jew. I'll believe Gaza doesn't want Hamas when they elect a group that isn't Hamas.

Maybe like you, but not like me:



What a sick society. No wonder they elected terorists as their leaders.

This is clear evidence that Hamas believe people, even children, are nothing more than arms to carry guns with and bodies to strap bombs to. The OP is right, Hamas doesn't give a damn about it's citizens it just needs as many as possible to jump in front of Israeli tanks.

It's your attitude that is sick. How can you say innocent people are not human like you and I?

No one has said that Hamas or the citizens of Gaza are not human. Strawman so noted.

So why do you claim they are ethnic cleansing the region, since they can't and are not doing it.

You're saying they are not doing it completely? This doesn't make much sense either.

Israel's 20% Arab population has something to be worried about then don't they?

Israel's attack on Gaza is way too disproportionate to be just a response to a few rockets lobbed at Sderot ( awaits propaganda claims of thousands of rockets )

It doesn't matter if it was one rocket or one billion rockets, an act of war is an act of war. Ultra-Liberals apparently think that violence should be nice and semetrical.

Do any of you people read or understand the Geneva Conventions +? Civilians or not, weapon sites are legitimate targets in warfare.
Hamas put the weapons there, not the IDF

As I'm sure you're aware, the differance is the IDF is not placing weapons in massive civilian populations or using civilians as shields. In this region, both are widely seen in regular use amongst Arab nations, mostly due to the totalitarian regimes in place in those nations. Even Iran used teens to run across mine-fields in their war with Iraq.

It wasn't bombed from the air. IDF forces on the ground took incoming nortar fire and they returned fire to the source with mortars. They likely didn't even know what they were aiming at until later.

At any rate, once the enemy uses a place as a fighting position that position becomes a legitimate target. The fault is entirely with Hamas.

Jeez Wildcat, don't you know soldiers are supposed to be omniscient?

Why is it that those who always accuse others of wanting civilian casualties...are the ones RESPONSIBLE for the overwhelming number of civilian casualties?

Affirming the consequent. Hamas lacks the capabilities to murder at the rate at which they desire. But trust me, if they had munitions as accurate as Israel we'd be hearing about Israeli death-tolls in the thousands.

I'll respond to more later.