Thomas Eshuis wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:During the latest Gaza war, women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population. Young men were overrepresented. Clear proof that civilian casualties were low. Had civilian casualties been high, the rate of dead women and children would have reflected the overall population.

Citation?

Yes because thats yet more bullshit.

I'm sorry that Google isn't working for you in the Netherlands, allow me to assist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28439404

2014: Operation Protective Edge

The overwhelming majority of those killed were Palestinians.

The UN says at least 2,104 Palestinian died, including 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women.

So to get the number of men, it's 2,104 minus 495 minus 253. Divide the result by 2,104 to get the percentage of adult male Palestinians as a proportion of those killed.

Do let me know if your calculator is also not working, and I can process the numbers for you

And the "Clear proof that civilian casualties were low"?

This is the part where you demonstrate that 1400+ out of 2100 total demonstrates civilian casualties were low.

Spearthrower wrote:And the "Clear proof that civilian casualties were low"?

It's clear proof of his assertion that "women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population".

I'm sure we're all open to explanations of why two-thirds of those killed were adult males that don't involve those males being involved in skulduggery.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And the "Clear proof that civilian casualties were low"?

It's clear proof of his assertion that "women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population".

So, as per usual you jumped the gun in responding to my post, which was aimed at the "civilian casualties are low, because women and children were under-represented".
Which is both a non-sequitur and the conclusion is factually incorrect as well.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And the "Clear proof that civilian casualties were low"?

It's clear proof of his assertion that "women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population".

I'm sure we're all open to explanations of why two-thirds of those killed were adult males that don't involve those males being involved in skulduggery.

That's clearly a misrepresentation, and is also clearly done intentionally, as you've specifically elided the rest of the paragraph's context.

Here it is:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:During the latest Gaza war, women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population. Young men were overrepresented. Clear proof that civilian casualties were low. Had civilian casualties been high, the rate of dead women and children would have reflected the overall population.

As anyone will quickly see, the point you're raising is not even a quibble - but rather that it was being employed to argue that civilian casualties were low.

Like I say, you're free to offer a better alternate explanation for why two thirds of those killed were adult males than WOTD's "they weren't really civilians" explanation. So let's hear it.

Strontium Dog wrote:Like I say, you're free to offer a better alternate explanation for why two thirds of those killed were adult males than WOTD's "they weren't really civilians" explanation. So let's hear it.

Why would I want to address your strawman?

I've cited directly above your post how you've selectively edited a quote to change the argument. If you want to persist in it, that only removes any suspicion that it could just have been seen as an honest mistake.

The easy way out has now closed, but then as it would have required admitting to being wrong and perhaps even apologizing, it was never an option, was it?

So address what was actually said, SD.

1) Do you agree that the under-representation of women and children is "clear proof" that the civilian casualties were low?

To cite your own source:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404

2) Is the death of 1,462 Palestinian civilians to be considered 'low?

3) Is the death of 1,462 Palestinian civilians still to be considered low in comparison to the death of 6 Israeli civilians?


Edit: grammar

I am addressing what was said.

In the absence of a better explanation, then the evidence clearly supports WOTD's assertion.

I can't apologise for being wrong when I'm not wrong, as that would be a lie.

Nor do I think the Israelis should apologise for killing more of the enemy than the enemy managed to kill of theirs.

Strontium Dog wrote:I am addressing what was said.

No, you're not.

What was said was this:

During the latest Gaza war, women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population. Young men were overrepresented. Clear proof that civilian casualties were low. Had civilian casualties been high, the rate of dead women and children would have reflected the overall population.

Strontium Dog wrote:In the absence of a better explanation, then the evidence clearly supports WOTD's assertion.

So you agree that the deaths of 1,462 Palestinian civilians should be considered 'low?

Strontium Dog wrote:I can't apologise for being wrong when I'm not wrong, as that would be a lie.

You were publicly wrong because you made an erroneous assumption about what was being contested. Everyone makes mistakes, you could have moved straight along.

But if you want to say that you intended to misrepresent other people's positions, I am fine with that.

Strontium Dog wrote:Nor do I think the Israelis should apologise for killing more of the enemy than the enemy managed to kill of theirs.

Civilians are the enemy, are they?

Palestinian civilians are the enemy. Isn't this called terrorism? Isn't that the criticism of Hamas?

Strontium Dog wrote:I am addressing what was said.

In the absence of a better explanation, then the evidence clearly supports WOTD's assertion.

I can't apologise for being wrong when I'm not wrong, as that would be a lie.

Nor do I think the Israelis should apologise for killing more of the enemy than the enemy managed to kill of theirs.

Except you are wrong in that you eihter accidentally or purposely adressed a quote-mine.
A quotemine I've already pointed out to you.

Spearthrower wrote:So you agree that the deaths of 1,462 Palestinian civilians should be considered 'low?

The dispute is over whether that many of the dead actually were civilians. Do try to keep up.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:So you agree that the deaths of 1,462 Palestinian civilians should be considered 'low?

The dispute is over whether that many of the dead actually were civilians. Do try to keep up.

No it's not - you're not even remotely believable when it clearly cites the number of dead civilians in the article you linked to.

Strontium Dog wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404

The UN says at least 2,104 Palestinian died, including 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women.

What the conversation was actually about prior to your strawman and consequent diversion was this:

During the latest Gaza war, women and children were vastly underrepresented among the dead if you compared it to the overall population. Young men were overrepresented. Clear proof that civilian casualties were low. Had civilian casualties been high, the rate of dead women and children would have reflected the overall population.

And back to the last post which you evaded in entirety:

Strontium Dog wrote:In the absence of a better explanation, then the evidence clearly supports WOTD's assertion.

So you agree that the deaths of 1,462 Palestinian civilians should be considered 'low?

Strontium Dog wrote:I can't apologise for being wrong when I'm not wrong, as that would be a lie.

You were publicly wrong because you made an erroneous assumption about what was being contested. Everyone makes mistakes, you could have moved straight along.

But if you want to say that you intended to misrepresent other people's positions, I am fine with that.

Strontium Dog wrote:Nor do I think the Israelis should apologise for killing more of the enemy than the enemy managed to kill of theirs.

Civilians are the enemy, are they?

Palestinian civilians are the enemy. Isn't this called terrorism? Isn't that the criticism of Hamas?

Strontium Dog wrote:Like I say, you're free to offer a better alternate explanation for why two thirds of those killed were adult males than WOTD's "they weren't really civilians" explanation. So let's hear it.

That's not how this works.

How this works is, WOTD made an assertion, now it's up to WOTD to back up said assertion with actually facts.

That job does not fall on us (or you if you don't want), it rests patently on WOTD.

So... we will wait.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:So you agree that the deaths of 1,462 Palestinian civilians should be considered 'low?

The dispute is over whether that many of the dead actually were civilians. Do try to keep up.

His claim is without basis.

Has he addressed all the factors? Say for instance, civilians being in the middle of a warzone, where women and children are not likely to be the ones venturing out to get food and water in between shelling volleys?

Of course not. His assertion is still, an assertion.

I'm happy however for WOTD to expand on the logic behind his reasoning.

HughMcB wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Actually, Germany had to give up on areas of land after WW2. Land was taken from Germany because they lost the war they started.

Which they signed over. Given they had little choice. But there was a negotiation nonetheless.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:I guess it's only wrong when Jews take land they won during war, fair and square. I guess it's only wrong when Jews return fire when attacked. Everyone else is free to do all these things, but not Jews. Oh no.

Don't know why you keep saying Jews, this isn't about Jews, it's about a self proclaimed Jewish State. It's not about an ethnicity, or a religion, it's about a sovereign entity. Oh wait, I forgot, you want to paint this as anti-Semitic. Of course.

It's also ignoring the fact that when Israel joined the UN, they agreed - like every member nation - that the acquisition of territory by war was not "fair and square", but a crime.

HughMcB wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:So you agree that the deaths of 1,462 Palestinian civilians should be considered 'low?

The dispute is over whether that many of the dead actually were civilians. Do try to keep up.

His claim is without basis.

Has he addressed all the factors? Say for instance, civilians being in the middle of a warzone, where women and children are not likely to be the ones venturing out to get food and water in between shelling volleys?

Of course not. His assertion is still, an assertion.

I'm happy however for WOTD to expand on the logic behind his reasoning.

His entire assertion is based on the non-sequitur that civilian = women and children, but not adolosent or adult males.

Nicko wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Actually, Germany had to give up on areas of land after WW2. Land was taken from Germany because they lost the war they started.

Which they signed over. Given they had little choice. But there was a negotiation nonetheless.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:I guess it's only wrong when Jews take land they won during war, fair and square. I guess it's only wrong when Jews return fire when attacked. Everyone else is free to do all these things, but not Jews. Oh no.

Don't know why you keep saying Jews, this isn't about Jews, it's about a self proclaimed Jewish State. It's not about an ethnicity, or a religion, it's about a sovereign entity. Oh wait, I forgot, you want to paint this as anti-Semitic. Of course.

It's also ignoring the fact that when Israel joined the UN, they agreed - like every member nation - that the acquisition of territory by war was not "fair and square", but a crime.

But Israel's justified in defending itself and any and all actions they take are only ever defensive.
so even when said actions violate UN treaties and basic human rights, not to mention the definition of self-defense, it's justified!

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Why should Arabs be able to settle on available land in disputed areas, but not Jews? Why should Jewish families not be allowed to return to the properties they were ethincally cleansed from on the West Bank in the 40s?

God, what a shameful pack of lies. This is blatantly untrue, videos I've already posted explain the truth, you're either lying or completely duped. I've been offline for most of a day or so, I missed all the fun in picking apart all of the shit you've smeared all over a couple of pages, I'm quite gratified to see many who couldn't stand to let your sick distortions and lies get by without protesting. Let me address this^^ particularly despicable pile of shit, the Israelis are the ones who ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, you should check out Israeli Historian Describes Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine in 1948 (Nakba), from Ilan Peppe discussing his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.


Or see Israeli Writer-Activist Tikva Honig-Parnass, Who Fought for Israel’s Founding in 1948, on 60 Years of Palestinian Dispossession and Occupation

We continue our coverage of the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe. We begin with Tikva Honig-Parnass, an Israeli who fought with Jewish paramilitary units and the Israeli army, participating in the military operations that expelled over 750,000 Palestinians. Today, she’s an anti-Zionist leftist writer and activist who has been involved with anti-occupation, women’s, and Mizrahi movements in Israel since the 1960s.

You do nothing but spew vile lies, clearly you've shielded yourself from the truth. Calling Finkelstein a liar is easy, refuting what he says, not so much, you didn't even try, so you know better than to actually state a specific, too easy to show how full of shit you are. not that you have't already made that easy enough. Almost all tactics of Israeli apologetics boil down to 2-change the subject or bogus ad hominems, as you've amply demonstrated. I've argued with way the fuck too many Israeli apologists, who really are worse than creationist/apologists, the shit you spew tries to hide, or justify, or deny the horrors that are going on right now, and with the support of the US, which is why it pisses me off to such an extent, I'm complicit in the horrors.

It's been amply demonstrated you have nothing of any value to say on this topic, you simply have no idea what you're are talking about.

Spearthrower wrote:Ok, so let's start him off with the point Finkelstein first makes in the video posted by Nicko.

Israel acquired the Occupied Palestine Territories - West Bank, East Jeruslam and Gaza - via the 1967 war, and it is contrary to international law to acquire land by act of war.

Thus, and I accept I am taking this slightly further than establishing single facts, Israel is a hostile occupying force.

WOTD care to take a stab at this?