IDF General Sued For "Targeted Killings"

webfusion said:
orwell; "I have not accused Webbie of bias because he serves in the IDF"

You have said that my service in the IDF is "alleged" and you do not believe my claim that I am a member of that force at all. When faced with evidence (and pretty good evidence, I may add) you proceeded to say that it matters not, and even if (!) I am telling the truth, you discount and reject it because I am biased in favor of Israel. Orwell, that is not critical thinking, that is woo.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: As I said before, I do not know if you're lying or telling the truth. I have no way of proving that you are a liar, you have no way of proving that you're telling the truth. That's why, to me, you're an alleged IDF member. But see, I actually do not care if you are a member of the IDF or not, that's not what makes you less credible in my opinion. To me, you lost credibility after you made several bigoted comments about Palestinians.

webfusion said:
Here I am, with a thread about the IDF killing civilians and a court trial derived from same, and the question is: Should the IDF Chief of Staff Ya'Alon face a trial for authorizing artillery units under his command to TARGET outgoing fire directed at Israel from Lebanese terrorists?
Click to expand...
Why yes he should face trial. The Israeli military (like any military in similar circumstances, the US military in Iraq come to mind) should have to answer for their actions. By the way, going through a trial doesn't imply guilt. If he goes through a fair trial and he's exonerated, then he is innocent, and anyone who says he is guilty without giving a pretty good reason is a partisan hack.

webfusion said:
Is that targeting proper?
This is the exact same situation faced by Israel today, as Gaza is now a launching-ground for rockets fired at Israeli towns and farms and villages.

What do you think Israel should do?
What would you like for your government to do, if your cities were under rocket attack from a neighboring hostile island?
Click to expand...
Israel has a right to defend itself. But, as I said a hundred times, Israeli security doesn't justify massive human rights abuses. If you're the good guys, behave like the good guys: do everything you can to minimise civilian casualties. And put in place structures that oversee military activities, so that if civilians are nevertheless killed or maimed, there can be an open inquiry into what went wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Why yes he should face trial. The Israeli military (like any military in similar circumstances, the US military in Iraq come to mind) should have to answer for their actions. By the way, going through a trial doesn't imply guilt. If he goes through a fair trial and he's exonerated, then he is innocent, and anyone who says he is guilty without giving a pretty good reason is a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

So if an IDF soldier is brought up on charges for excessive violence but the court exonerates him, you would call anyone who still claims he's guilty a "partisan hack"?
 
Orwell said:
Why yes he should face trial. The Israeli military (like any military in similar circumstances, the US military in Iraq come to mind) should have to answer for their actions. By the way, going through a trial doesn't imply guilt. If he goes through a fair trial and he's exonerated, then he is innocent, and anyone who says he is guilty without giving a pretty good reason is a partisan hack.
Click to expand...
Once again, your ignorance is on full display. At trial you are found either guilty or not guilty. You are not ever found innocent, at least not in the US and also, I'd bet, Canada.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
So if an IDF soldier is brought up on charges for excessive violence but the court exonerates him, you would call anyone who still claims he's guilty a "partisan hack"?
Click to expand...

...
Orwell said:
If he goes through a fair trial and he's exonerated, then he is innocent, and anyone who says he is guilty without giving a pretty good reason is a partisan hack.
Click to expand...
 
something wrong with the quote feature --

WildCat, I did not say the quoted paragraph starting with "Why yes he should face trial" ::::: that was Orwell, in his usual fashion of blowing smoke out his a--.


He also persists in telling me that I have no way of proving that I'm telling the truth. I am sure everyone else is satisfied that my two pieces of evidence presented (photos of myself in uniform while on duty in Gaza, and an actual call-up notice from the IDF) are sufficient to prove that I'm a verteran of the Israeli Defense Forces. Let Orwell remain in his fantasy-world of disbelief, I don't care. He has been shown over and over to be the one with no credibility here. This episode justs adds to it. Or, as WildCat so eloquently puts it, "His ignorance is on full display"

If you're the good guys, behave like the good guys: do everything you can to minimise civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

How about like todays' news report from Gaza ---


  • Two Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip on Monday, landing in the western Negev and prompting an IDF artillery strike on rocket launchers in response.
    One Qassam landed near a kindergarten in a kibbutz south of Sderot during a Hanukkah party for the children

Orwell, what do you say about that? Should the IDF sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the Palestinian terrorists are intentionally targeting civilians?

I really don't know what else to say to you, Orwell, you have me at a loss for words.
 
webfusion said:
WildCat, I did not say the quoted paragraph starting with "Why yes he should face trial" ::::: that was Orwell, in his usual fashion of blowing smoke out his a--.
Click to expand...
Oops, i didn't notice that! It's fixed now.

eta: There's nothing wrong w/ the "quote" feature, just some text at the top of Orwell's post I hadn't noticed!
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
WildCat, I did not say the quoted paragraph starting with "Why yes he should face trial" ::::: that was Orwell, in his usual fashion of blowing smoke out his a--.


He also persists in telling me that I have no way of proving that I'm telling the truth. I am sure everyone else is satisfied that my two pieces of evidence presented (photos of myself in uniform while on duty in Gaza, and an actual call-up notice from the IDF) are sufficient to prove that I'm a verteran of the Israeli Defense Forces. Let Orwell remain in his fantasy-world of disbelief, I don't care. He has been shown over and over to be the one with no credibility here. This episode justs adds to it. Or, as WildCat so eloquently puts it, "His ignorance is on full display"
Click to expand...
What does that prove? Zip, nada, bupkis, niente, rien. You yourself said so a few posts back. I don't think that you can positively prove your identity on an web forum. But that's quite besides the point, since I don't really care if you are a general in the IDF or the sarge in charge of the latrines. That's not why I think you're not credible. We are on a web forum. The only way we have to evaluate fellow posters is what they say.

webfusion said:
How about like todays' news report from Gaza ---


  • Two Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip on Monday, landing in the western Negev and prompting an IDF artillery strike on rocket launchers in response.
    One Qassam landed near a kindergarten in a kibbutz south of Sderot during a Hanukkah party for the children

Orwell, what do you say about that? Should the IDF sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the Palestinian terrorists are intentionally targeting civilians?
Click to expand...
See, that's why I don't find you credible. I never said that the IDf should "sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the Palestinian terrorists are intentionally targeting civilians". But I did say that the fact that certain Palestinians do target Israeli civilians does not give the IDF the right to be careless with Palestinian civilian lives. Once again, Israeli security doesn't justify massive human rights abuses. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Once again, Israeli security doesn't justify massive human rights abuses. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?
Click to expand...
And these "massive human rights abuses" were...? And by what standards?

Of course 2 wrongs don't make a right. But defending oneself or ones country from a murderous attack is not only a right, it is right.
 
IDF retailiates with helicopter assaults on Gaza targets...

So, what would you propose instead, Orwell? You think that Israeli security needs must be subordinated to a hands-off attitude towards the Palestinian population?

The Israelis are under attack, the Islamic Jihad (et al) are firing missiles.

What is your solution? Pretend you are an IDF General.
 
Good one, WC!

I would never wish to be an IDF General either, especially if I faced being dragged into a US courtroom for wartime actions that were pursued in the face of perfidous provocations by terrorists.

BTW, I have yet to see any evidence that Mr Ya'Alon actually officially received the summons (subpeona) --

Yaalon said that on November 4 he was approached by an anonymous group of people wanting to give him a statement claim (subpoena).

Yaalon refused to accept the statement.

"That’s a ridiculous civil lawsuit. It’s a lawsuit related to an incident in Kana to which I have no connection to whatsoever. I also refused to acknowledge another lawsuit which was related to the Rachel Corrie incident (in which an IDF D9 bulldozer hit and killed the American citizen). They argued that I was responsible as chief of staff," Yaalon added.

Stay tuned...
 
I have not accused Webbie of bias because he serves in the IDF

Oh really, Orwell?

Let's go to the video tape:

Thirdly, even you you were (or are or whatever) in the IDF, that doesn't make you credible. Actually, it makes you even less credible, since you would belong to the organisation that I and others have been criticising...
 
Ah yes, the old quote out of context male bovine manure trick. How about quoting the whole thing, Skeptic?

First, I never requested you to prove anything.
Second, your link proves nothing.
Thirdly, even you you were (or are or whatever) in the IDF, that doesn't make you credible. Actually, it makes you even less credible, since you would belong to the organisation that I and others have been criticising for being careless with Palestinian civilians lives. On the other hand, there are people in the IDF I greatly admire (the refusenicks, for instance), so belonging or not belonging to the IDF is less important to your credibility than you think.
Fourthly, maybe you were in the IDF, but as far as we know, you might have been a logistics officer.

Now, your relation to the IDF is irrelevant. You are not credible to me because you have consistently given one sided opinions, and you have, on several occasions, given signs that you have very hostile feelings towards Palestinians; not Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians in general, civilians included. Had you been more reasonable and less partisan, I would take what you say about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict a lot more seriously, and your belonging to the IDF or not would not mater.
Click to expand...

The funny thing... I actually never expected Webbie to get so worked out about my alleged IDF member thing. I just assumed that he knew there was no way he could prove who he was on a web forum, and he would leave it at that. Oh well...
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
I predict his answer will be "I would never be an IDF general" or something like that.
Click to expand...

If I was an IDF general, I would resign in protest. :p

By the way, I do think that Israeli security needs must be subordinated to the respect of basic Palestinian human rights!

Ok, lets play armchair general...

Come on, are you telling me that your precious IDF is so incompetent that they can't go after the extremists without periodically being accused of needlessly shooting up civilians? Is the IDF so filled with trigger happy incompetent clowns that they can't hit a barn without destroying the farmers house? Or do they simply don't care who they are hitting? I think it's the latter, I mean, I'll give them credit for something: I actually think they are able to hit their targets (i.e. including a few civilian targets on occasion, as a reprisal). If the IDF gets serious about minimising civilian casulaties, not dropping bombs at night into crowded residential areas in order to get one man would probably be a good idea, for instance... If I was an IDF general, I would come up with some very clear and very narrow rules of engagement, and I would make sure they were respected. And why does the IDF keep using artillery in these kinds of situations? Can't they buy guided munitions with all that mullah they get from the US? And why does the Israeli government keep undermining the only authority (the PA) that can potentially exert any kind of control over the extremists? Who the hell do you think all these civilian deaths and injuries help the most? You're giving the extremists one hell of a propaganda tool!
 
Last edited:
Sure you would. After all, anyone who continues to serve in the IDF must be a hypocritical, amoral, bloodthirsty racist, right? I guess that means you think something like half the Israeli population - those who serve in the IDF - also falls into those categories, because, hey, they don't refuse to serve, or resign immediately upon being drafted. I'm just as fed up with human rights abuses as you are, Orwell, but you're going about this all wrong, and you have some, shall we say, rather uninformed opinions. Passion is good. Passion for The Right Thing is a fabulous characteristic, but you have to have the right tools. The first is accurate information. Without that you do more damage than good. Don't dismiss IDF sources out of hand, Orwell. I don't, Israeli human rights organizations don't, the left-leaning national media don't, and neither should you.

Orwell, the IDF has a job to do, and it does it as well as can be expected, considering that it's charged with defending Israeli citizens from terrorists who think nothing of using civilians for cover as a matter of course. When push comes to shove, and citizens' lives are on the line, as anti-occupation as I may be, I don't fault IDF commanders for deciding to shoot even though they might hit an innocent. Tragic, unfortunate, depressing, etc., but not ultimately wrong. Wrong would be a strategy of hiding among civilians with the goal of protection, and crying foul when somehow that doesn't confer immunity. Wrong would be thinking that somehow there always exists a practical way to identify, isolate and remove terrorists without harming anyone else. Until you can demonstrate specific constructive alternatives that serve the same tactical purpose there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist becasue of the way things are done now.

The problem, Orwell, is not with the IDF. The IDF is and always has been an arm of Israeli policy, not a shaper. That's what democracy is all about. The democratically elected government gives the military its assignments, not vice versa. Don't like the results? Move to Israel, apply for citizenship and vote. Or develop constructive models and share them with concerned citizens and policymakers. Just as an aside, Orwell, if you want to influence Israeli public opinion - which I think you'll agree is the preferred way of effecting change in a democratic society - stay away from accusing the IDF, as an institution, of systematic abuses. You'll shoot yourself in the foot by alienating everyone but the hardcore left. Even most Arab citizens of Israel (who actually prefer the term "Palestinian," by and large) refrain from that, save a few marginal hotheads and attention-seekers.

That's assuming you have democratic ideals in mind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. There's a difference betweem knee-jerk condemnation and constructive criticism. The latter works wonders, and helps your (our?) cause. The former accomplishes nothing. Stay away from it.
 
Orwell said:
Ah yes, the old quote out of context male bovine manure trick. How about quoting the whole thing, Skeptic?
Click to expand...

The whole quote makes it worse for you, Orwell. First you say serving in the IDF makes him less credible, and then you say it's irrelevant. So you accuse him in one sentence and take back the accusation in the next. The idea is, of course, is to insinuate he is less credible for being in the IDF while claiming that you never "really" said that.

Now, I could have said that this sort of insinuation of typical of a certain welfare-recieving, cowardly, self-important pampered kid who was never in danger in his life and hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about; but I am not saying it, and declare that it is totally irrelevant to my opinion of that person's views, so I don't want to hear any whining from you about it, y'hear?

(See the problem, Orwell?)
 
By the way, I do think that Israeli security needs must be subordinated to the respect of basic Palestinian human rights!

What this means is that Palestinian human rights are worth more than israeli lives.

Well, of course you think that, Orwell.

Of course.
 
Skeptic said:
The whole quote makes it worse for you, Orwell. First you say serving in the IDF makes him less credible, and then you say it's irrelevant. So you accuse him in one sentence and take back the accusation in the next. The idea is, of course, is to insinuate he is less credible for being in the IDF while claiming that you never "really" said that.
Click to expand...
Well, I can see how an idiot of your type would interpret things that way, yes. But I'm not responsible for your active imagination, am I?
By the way... Careful, your foaming at the mouth is once again impairing your typing!

Skeptic said:
Now, I could have said that this sort of insinuation of typical of a certain welfare-recieving, cowardly, self-important pampered kid who was never in danger in his life and hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about; but I am not saying it, and declare that it is totally irrelevant to my opinion of that person's views, so I don't want to hear any whining from you about it, y'hear?

(See the problem, Orwell?)
Click to expand...
Sorry, who's that? Who are you talking about? I don't know anyone that answers to that description. Maybe something you have been imagining once again? ;)
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
By the way, I do think that Israeli security needs must be subordinated to the respect of basic Palestinian human rights!

What this means is that Palestinian human rights are worth more than israeli lives.

Well, of course you think that, Orwell.

Of course.
Click to expand...

No, he's not a partisan hack, not at all... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom