"Innocent" civilians?

[Mephisto]

Why are you posting on this forum?

To serve the general public with your shining examples of illogical thought and bad rhetoric. Keep going, by the time you're through not even Corplinx, Jocko or Grammy will make excuses for you.

 

[Bjorn]

No, I specifically said "advancing on an Israeli position". That eliminates the possibility that their motions towards the Israeli was merely incidental to an attempt to flee; "advance" indicates a purposeful movement towards some goal.

So, are we down to one large group of people, some of them armed, moving purposely towards the Israeli position? Or are they still two groups, moving together towards the Israeli position, both groups purposely doing so, one group with guns and one group with ... what? Nothing? Flowers? Signs saying 'make love, not war'?

Are they just casually walking? Why are they walking in that direction? Are they following the armed guys, or are the armed guys following them? Is it "yeah, sure, they won't fire on us civilians, chuckle", or is it "this is the way to the market, and even if those guys with guns look a bit dangerous I still have to go there today as always"?

 

[Mephisto]

Either you're an idiot, or you're deliberately interpreting it in a manner that makes no sense. What purpose did you imagine a group of civilians to have to advance on an Israeli position?

I think this shows exactly WHO the idiot is - you ask me what purpose did I imagine a group of civilians to have to advance on an Israeli position? It was YOUR example dumbass. What purpose did YOU have - to give you a reason to shoot them all?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why are you posting on this forum?

Evasion noted.

 

[.13.]

It means that they were attempting to avoid engaging in violence. It doesn't mean they were attempting to avoid being part of violence (i.e. getting killed).

Is group B intentionally there to act as human shields?

If they are then they are engaging the Israelis and there is no distinction between the two groups. Though in your scenario you explicitly point out that there are two groups and group B has no intention to engage the Israelis.

If they are not intentional human shields then they must be braindead, suicidal or forced to accompany group A.

 

[Mephisto]

I agree that what I wrote wasn't completely clear, . . .

So now I'm supposed to engage you based on what you WANTED to write instead of what you wrote?

 

[Mycroft]

So now I'm supposed to engage you based on what you WANTED to write instead of what you wrote?

I can't think of a good reason why not. Can you?

 

[Mephisto]

I can't think of a good reason why not. Can you?

Frankly, I'd worry if I could surmise what was in Cement-Head's head.

 

[Mephisto]

I didn't see that. Mycroft didn't see that.

Then explain WHY Mycroft was in agreement with me in this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1561704&postcount=19

 

[Art Vandelay]

Then explain WHY Mycroft was in agreement with me in this post?

You see what you want to see.

To serve the general public with your shining examples of illogical thought and bad rhetoric. Keep going, by the time you're through not even Corplinx, Jocko or Grammy will make excuses for you.

Name one illogical thought.

I think this shows exactly WHO the idiot is - you ask me what purpose did I imagine a group of civilians to have to advance on an Israeli position? It was YOUR example dumbass. What purpose did YOU have - to give you a reason to shoot them all?

I already answered that. They're there to interfere with the Israelis shooting the other group.

So now I'm supposed to engage you based on what you WANTED to write instead of what you wrote?

More strawmen. I made it quite clear what you should do, and your selective quoting is quite dishonest.

I think this shows exactly WHO the idiot is - ...me

Indeed.

If they are then they are engaging the Israelis and there is no distinction between the two groups.

I disagree.

 

[Tmy]

I think the Isrealies use a heavy hand when it comes to Palistinians. Do you think they treated the Isrealie settlers they removed in the same manner as they would have Palistinians?? No way. They wouldved "emptied" the settlements in a different fashion.

 

[Mycroft]

Then explain WHY Mycroft was in agreement with me in this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1561704&postcount=19

Calling that agreement is a little strong. What I said was I can understand how you arrived at your interpretation.

What baffles me is why you cling to it after it's been clarified.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Here is the Palestinian scam in action.

09:11 11/04/2006

Arab bloc urges Security Council censure for Israel's Gaza action

NEW YORK - Ambassadors to the United Nations from the Arab states convened Monday at the UN's New York headquarters to discuss strategy concerning the escalation of Israeli military strikes against Palestinian targets.

"The international community cannot continue to stand idly by while defenseless women, children and men continue to be killed, wounded and maimed," Palestinian UN Observer Riyad Mansour said.

Ahhhh...the beauty of the scam...so simplistic... Just get Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to fire Kassam rockets into Israel from Palestinian civilian areas for the past six months. Then, when the IDF really begins to respond, (by shelling the Kassam launching sites in Gaza and targeting cars with missles), go crying to the UN and protest "the escalation of Israeli military strikes against Palestinian targets".... notice the lingo, Kassam launching sites and cars full of terrorists are "Palestinian targets". Not military targets or combatants, tricky semantics huh?

....add the old "think of the children" statement to drive it home:

09:11 11/04/2006

"The international community cannot continue to stand idly by while defenseless women, children and men continue to be killed, wounded and maimed," Palestinian UN Observer Riyad Mansour said.

Well Riyad old pal, why are you standing idly by while defenseless women, children and men continue to be killed, wounded and maimed because the PA allows Palestinian terrorists to use Palestinian civilian areas for firing positions? Huh? Cat got your tongue?

As Riyad is protesting Israeli crimes the Palestinian Authority does nothing, zero, nada, ziltch to actually stop Palestinian terror groups from firing Kassam rockets into Israel. What a scam huh? The Palestinians do not stop Palestinian terror groups from firing Kassam rockets into Israel...but when the IDF response becomes too great they go to the UN and cry wolf...at this point the useful idiots chime in "Israeli human rights abuses!" and "moral equivalency!"

09:11 11/04/2006

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement over the weekend expressing concern about the increasing violence on both sides, including rocket attacks on Israeli targets and Israeli reprisals.

...and there is the moral equivalency argument by none other than useful idiot #1 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

{edited to add}

And then the cycle starts all over again. The Palestinian Authority does nothing to stop Palestinian terror groups from attacking Israel. Israel responds. The Arab world/Palestinians then go to the UN and cry wolf. Useful idiots scream moral equivalency. Seen it a hundred times since 1993.

 

[Mephisto]

You see what you want to see.

And you don't? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Name one illogical thought.

That children throwing rocks at tanks are more guilty than soldiers shooting children throwing rocks at tanks. That a hyper-alert soldier expecting trouble from gun-toting terrorists can be caught by surprise by a kid with a rock. That soldiers should shoot into a crowd of unarmed people they suspect is engaging them even if they have no apparent intentions of engaging them and aren't carrying any weapons. . . .

I already answered that. They're there to interfere with the Israelis shooting the other group.

But you clearly said, they have no intention of engaging the Israelis. I think acting as human shields (does anyone actually do that?) counts as working WITH the terrorists; therefore they ARE engaging Israelis.[/QUOTE]

 

[webfusion]

tmy - "I think the Israelis use a heavy hand when it comes to Palestinians."

Nearly 100 Palestinian suicide attempts this year already, against Israeli civilains -- in their cities, in the homes, in the markets, in the schools, in their streets -- have been stopped by the 'heavy hand' of IDF & ShinBet Security Services.

I hope that the Palestinian terrorists continue to be slapped down hard by the heavy hand of IDF action, until they quit being a threat to Israeli civil society.

What threats do Israeli settlers pose that require a similar effort at dealing with them? Who are they bothering, in general? The settlers are living on lands that they feel (and have ample justification to feel) is not 'arab land' --- you can disagree with that point to your heart's content, but in any case, they aren't bothering their Palestinian neighbors with threats of genocidal death or organizing into militias with the expressed purpose of killing arabs.

And one more thing -- the Prime Minister-designate of Israel has announced his intentions of evacuating all 68 settlements on the far side of the Security Barrier. It will not be a simple thing for this to be accomplished, to say the least. However, I cannot imagine that the jews in those settlements deserve anything other than fair treatment when the time comes to get them to leave.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:57 AM ET

RAMALLAH (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Abbas said on Tuesday he was willing to resume peace talks with Israel as soon as it formed a new government, even though the Israelis are shunning the Palestinian Authority led by his Hamas rivals.

"We are ready to begin negotiations on the basis of the road map from the minute the Israeli government is formed," Abbas told reporters in Ramallah, referring to the U.S.-backed peace plan that was drawn up in 2002 but never implemented.

Ok. Cool. What are the first 18 words of the Roadmap?

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below;

Have the Palestinians immediately undertaken an unconditional cessation of violence?

14:59 Apr 11, '06

Arab terrorists in Gaza fired at least five Kassam rockets at Israel since yesterday, hitting Sderot and the Kerem Shalom area. No one was hurt.

Guess not... but forget that for a sec, what does the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority say?

April 9, 2006

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Saturday reiterated his government's refusal to recognize the state of Israel and forswear violence.

So what will happen? The Palestinian Authority will blame Israel, yet again, for being an obstacle to peace cuz it refuses to take Abbas up on his generous offer to resume "peace" talks based on the roadmap.

Such is the game.

 

[Mycroft]

That children throwing rocks at tanks are more guilty than soldiers shooting children throwing rocks at tanks. That a hyper-alert soldier expecting trouble from gun-toting terrorists can be caught by surprise by a kid with a rock. That soldiers should shoot into a crowd of unarmed people they suspect is engaging them even if they have no apparent intentions of engaging them and aren't carrying any weapons. . . .

Those all seem to be exagerations of what he said.

 

[c0rbin]

It is nigh impossible for a guerilla group to work and coordinate in an urban area without the cooperation of the locals.

Where do insurgents go when they sleep? What food do they eat? Where do they hide their mortars and rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making equipment? How do they blend into a neighborhood so they learn the routines of the soldiers and police?

 

[Art Vandelay]

That children throwing rocks at tanks are more guilty than soldiers shooting children throwing rocks at tanks. That a hyper-alert soldier expecting trouble from gun-toting terrorists can be caught by surprise by a kid with a rock. That soldiers should shoot into a crowd of unarmed people they suspect is engaging them even if they have no apparent intentions of engaging them and aren't carrying any weapons. . . .

I said
1) name one thing (not three)
2) that I said (not that you made up)
3) that's illogical (not merely something with which you disagree)

You blew all three parts.

And that middle one is simply bizarre. You seriously believe that an alert soldier can't be surprised?

But you clearly said, they have no intention of engaging the Israelis. I think acting as human shields (does anyone actually do that?) counts as working WITH the terrorists; therefore they ARE engaging Israelis.

People who supply terrorists are also working with them; that doesn't mean that they're engaging the Israelis. And yes, people do act as human shields. It's well established that Palestinians are willing to die merely to hurt Israel.

 

[Mephisto]

Calling that agreement is a little strong. What I said was I can understand how you arrived at your interpretation.

What baffles me is why you cling to it after it's been clarified.

Perhaps because of this. It hasn't been sufficiently clarified, at least in Cement-Head's mind.

As Mycroft pointed out, what is "clearly" true is completely inconsistent with what I actually said. What, two groups just happen to be advancing on the exact same Israeli position at the exact same time, and you assume they are "TWO SEPARATE GROUPS"? Please.

I wonder WHY I assumed they were two separate groups? One was described as being armed and looking for trouble. The second, was described as unarmed with NO INTENTON OF ENGAGING THE ISRAELI SOLDIERS. Now, you could have just said one large group of people looking for trouble if you didn't mean they were two separate groups.

Either you're an idiot, or you're deliberately interpreting it in a manner that makes no sense. What purpose did you imagine a group of civilians to have to advance on an Israeli position? Does it really take a genius to figure out that several thousand civilians don't just spontaneously decide to walk between a bunch of Israelis with guns and a bunch of Palestinians with guns?

First off, you're the idiot who said that this group of civilians (Palestinians) were unarmed and had NO INTENTIONS OF ENGAGING THE SOLDIERS. That to me says they had no intention of being involved in any violence. What purpose do YOU imagine a group of unarmed civilians with NO INTENTION OF ENGAGING THE SOLDIERS has? And NOW you've assigned a number to this group ("several thousand") whereas before I only imagined a group of 30 to 40 individuals. You also have them "walking between a bunch of Israeli soldiers and a bunch of Palestinians with guns - that WASN'T in the original thread.

I think we all know why you'd like them to "spontaneously decide to walk between a bunch of Israelis with guns and a bunch of Palestinians with guns," so you could shoot them!