electricwhiteboy wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:I think the IDF actually has a pretty good record in avoiding civilian casualties compared to other military powers (Russia or the US) and I'm not going to say Israel can't try to stop rocket attacks or people damaging a border fence.

Seriously? Their policy could be pretty much summed up thusly: "We knew civilians were in the area. However they were "human shields" so we went ahead and launched the assualt anyway. We cannot be held to blame for these dreadful occurances. We told people to leave the area before we dropped the White Phospherous on their position. This is not out fault. It is nothing to do with our policy of seizing land that caused the civilians to stay in their homes in defiance."

So what is the IDF supposed to do when a bunch of militants are posing an immediate threat to Israeli civilians, but they are hiding behind human shields. If they do nothing, their own will be slaughtered. If they defend their own, the enemy's shields will be mowed down.

Would you simply have let someone slaughter your friends and not attempted to defend them with all necessary means?

And what about the IDF's record? What do you think? I quote: "Compared to other conflicts in the region, casualty numbers in the Israel-Palestine conflict are low. 15,000 dead since 1948 compared to 500,000 in Syria in seven years time."

Anyone care to comment on this one? Nonsense all the way, or do they have a point or two?

https://www.unwatch.org/top-un-human-ri ... -violence/

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Anyone care to comment on this one? Nonsense all the way, or do they have a point or two?

https://www.unwatch.org/top-un-human-ri ... -violence/

I'm curious just how much credibility you would place in an article from a pro-Hamas "watchdog." Now imagine that's how we feel about your link.

A pro-Hamas "watchdog" would have no credibility, but UN watch has exposed a lot of BS in the UN. Are there any clear errors in that article?

The diversity of the UN is an infinitely more credible source. I don't waste my time reading from source I know have a right leaning agenda. I also don't read or listen to, Alex Jones. I listened for maybe 10 minutes. That was all the time I needed to determine he is an unreliable source of "information."

BTW, I also wouldn't consider a pro-Hamas source as credible.

BTW, I started to read your link Dodo... Didn't even need to finish the first sentence to see that it was agenda-driven in favor of Israel...

In response to Israel’s acts of self-defense on the Gaza border ...

That isn't the language of unbiased reports. Whether or not the guys with guns and tanks were the self-defenders or the ones with rocks and burning tires, is really a matter of opinion, but I'm inclined to side with the rock-throwers because it's unlikely they posed much of a threat considering their arsenal.

PensivePenny wrote:The diversity of the UN is an infinitely more credible source. I don't waste my time reading from source I know have a right leaning agenda. I also don't read or listen to, Alex Jones. I listened for maybe 10 minutes. That was all the time I needed to determine he is an unreliable source of "information."

BTW, I also wouldn't consider a pro-Hamas source as credible.

Yes, the UN is diverse. You have credible parts of the UN such as the IPCC, and you have useless parts of US such as the HRC (Saudi-Arabia leading the HRC, what the fuck is that?).

But why are you talking about the diversity of the UN? Is this relevant to the page I linked to?

How do you know UN Watch has a right leaning agenda, by the way?

PensivePenny wrote:BTW, I started to read your link Dodo... Didn't even need to finish the first sentence to see that it was agenda-driven in favor of Israel...

In response to Israel’s acts of self-defense on the Gaza border ...

That isn't the language of unbiased reports. Whether or not the guys with guns and tanks were the self-defenders or the ones with rocks and burning tires, is really a matter of opinion, but I'm inclined to side with the rock-throwers because it's unlikely they posed much of a threat considering their arsenal.

I'm not asking if it is unbiased or not. I'm asking if it is wrong.

And why is calling those protecting the borders defenders wrong, but calling the killing of 50 Hamas terrorists a "massacre of civilians" correct?

The fact is that the Palestinians are trying to break through the borders, and their stated goal is to kill Jews.

As for not having to defend yourself against rocks, have you ever had rocks flinged at your head using slingshots and similar? A big rock to the head is not dangerous?

Anyway, I can see that people are more interested in posturing and chest-thumping than discussing specific issues being raised. I'm really trying to understand why everyone seems to be completely insane about this. Why is it that people who are otherwise rational seem to irrational and hateful when it comes to Israel? Am I missing something? Are the facts that show that Israel has the right to defend itself wrong? Are the facts that show that contrary to claims by Israel-haters, innocent civilians are not being slaughtered, wrong?

But no one seems to be willing to address the issues. They seem to prefer emotional outbursts to discussing the facts.

Physician heal thyself.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
The fact is that the Palestinians are trying to break through the borders, and their stated goal is to kill Jews.

Evidence please. Sure Hamas has stated it does not recognise Israels right to exist, and has demonstrated it's capacity for terror, but all Palestinians?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:And why is calling those protecting the borders defenders wrong, but calling the killing of 50 Hamas terrorists a "massacre of civilians" correct?

Evidence please. You assert those killed were not innocent civilians - just frustrated with the inhuman conditions they are living under, how do you know?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:As for not having to defend yourself against rocks, have you ever had rocks flinged at your head using slingshots and similar? A big rock to the head is not dangerous?

The Army is a considerable distance from the fence - provide evidence they were under direct threat.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Anyway, I can see that people are more interested in posturing and chest-thumping than discussing specific issues being raised. I'm really trying to understand why everyone seems to be completely insane about this. Why is it that people who are otherwise rational seem to irrational and hateful when it comes to Israel? Am I missing something? Are the facts that show that Israel has the right to defend itself wrong? Are the facts that show that contrary to claims by Israel-haters, innocent civilians are not being slaughtered, wrong?

But no one seems to be willing to address the issues. They seem to prefer emotional outbursts to discussing the facts.

A quick bit of self reflection should answer that question more than adequately.

Pebble wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
The fact is that the Palestinians are trying to break through the borders, and their stated goal is to kill Jews.

Evidence please. Sure Hamas has stated it does not recognise Israels right to exist, and has demonstrated it's capacity for terror, but all Palestinians?

All Palestinians were not trying to break through the border.

Attempted breaches have been reported by the media:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gaza-israe ... 018-04-27/
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Insid ... nce-556447

WayOfTheDodo wrote:And why is calling those protecting the borders defenders wrong, but calling the killing of 50 Hamas terrorists a "massacre of civilians" correct?

Evidence please. You assert those killed were not innocent civilians - just frustrated with the inhuman conditions they are living under, how do you know?

Hamas admitted they were members of the group, undermining the "massacring innocent civilians" mantra. Do you need me to provide evidence of Hamas' admission, or what are you asking for evidence for exactly?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:As for not having to defend yourself against rocks, have you ever had rocks flinged at your head using slingshots and similar? A big rock to the head is not dangerous?

The Army is a considerable distance from the fence - provide evidence they were under direct threat.

Why are they throwing rocks if they don't think they can hit anyone?

Anyway, anyone trying to break through the border is a direct threat. Did you forget about the terror tunnels Hamas made in order to attack civilians inside Israel?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Anyway, I can see that people are more interested in posturing and chest-thumping than discussing specific issues being raised. I'm really trying to understand why everyone seems to be completely insane about this. Why is it that people who are otherwise rational seem to irrational and hateful when it comes to Israel? Am I missing something? Are the facts that show that Israel has the right to defend itself wrong? Are the facts that show that contrary to claims by Israel-haters, innocent civilians are not being slaughtered, wrong?

But no one seems to be willing to address the issues. They seem to prefer emotional outbursts to discussing the facts.

A quick bit of self reflection should answer that question more than adequately.

Case in point.

So again: Why is calling those protecting the borders defenders wrong, but calling the killing of 50 Hamas terrorists a "massacre of civilians" correct?

Were the doctors throwing rocks?

Alan C wrote:Were the doctors throwing rocks?

I don't know. Do you know what they were doing? Do you even know that any were actually shot?

By the way, now I see that Islamic Jihad claims that 3 of the 62 dead (of which 50 were allegedly Hamas members) were members of their military wing, though they claim they were unarmed. Odd, military personnel without weapons?

Anyway, do you have any answers? Or are you just here to change the subject to avoid providing any answers?

I also seem to recall the IDF posting photos of 10+ people wearing military uniforms back when the number of dead was around 10-20 people or so. So even before Hamas admitted to almost all the dead being members, the IDF revealed that the majority of those killed were militant Hamas members. Of course, a lot of people rejected the IDF's evidence out of hand.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Do you even know that any were actually shot?

Yes, as reported on CBC above.

Dodo seem to employ the same ideological blindness and hypocricy as the people who tried defending Trump's seperation policy, at all costs.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Pebble wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
The fact is that the Palestinians are trying to break through the borders, and their stated goal is to kill Jews.

Evidence please. Sure Hamas has stated it does not recognise Israels right to exist, and has demonstrated it's capacity for terror, but all Palestinians?

All Palestinians were not trying to break through the border.

You can''t even keep your own story straight.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Attempted breaches have been reported by the media:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gaza-israe ... 018-04-27/
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Insid ... nce-556447

So you admit you initial simplistically generalised accusation was incorrect?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:And why is calling those protecting the borders defenders wrong, but calling the killing of 50 Hamas terrorists a "massacre of civilians" correct?

Evidence please. You assert those killed were not innocent civilians - just frustrated with the inhuman conditions they are living under, how do you know?

Hamas admitted they were members of the group, undermining the "massacring innocent civilians" mantra. Do you need me to provide evidence of Hamas' admission, or what are you asking for evidence for exactly?

Even if we were to accept your assertion at face value, how does that excuse the deaths of 12 civilians of which eight were minors, exactly?
Or the more than 1000 being wounded by gun shots?
That's a massacre of civilians.
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/05/15/palestinians-bury-dead-bloodiest-gaza-day-since-2014/
On the topic of your claim however, as usual you try to insinuate things that either aren't in evidence or rational.
Being a member of Hamas does not excuse the killing of someone. Only if and when such a person poses a threat.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:As for not having to defend yourself against rocks, have you ever had rocks flinged at your head using slingshots and similar? A big rock to the head is not dangerous?

The Army is a considerable distance from the fence - provide evidence they were under direct threat.

Why are they throwing rocks if they don't think they can hit anyone?

You keep trotting out this asinine 'argument'.
If they're not in immediate danger, there's no need to shoot people.
If they are in immediate danger they should adress that directly by dispersin and or arresting those that pose such a threat.
Instead they fire indiscriminately at people that pose no direct threat.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Anyway, anyone trying to break through the border is a direct threat.

Yes. we're well aware of your penchant to think only in black and white when it comes to this topic.
Meanwhile, reality operates with a quite a bit more nuance.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Did you forget about the terror tunnels Hamas made in order to attack civilians inside Israel?

Typical disengenuous conflation.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Anyway, I can see that people are more interested in posturing and chest-thumping than discussing specific issues being raised. I'm really trying to understand why everyone seems to be completely insane about this. Why is it that people who are otherwise rational seem to irrational and hateful when it comes to Israel? Am I missing something? Are the facts that show that Israel has the right to defend itself wrong? Are the facts that show that contrary to claims by Israel-haters, innocent civilians are not being slaughtered, wrong?

But no one seems to be willing to address the issues. They seem to prefer emotional outbursts to discussing the facts.

A quick bit of self reflection should answer that question more than adequately.

Case in point.

Indeed, you continue to fail to substantiate the accusations you're throwing around.
Again, it's not a black and white issue where one side is completely innocent and the other completely without innoncents.
Again, no-one's saying Israel cannot or should not be allowed to defend itself. It is YOU who keeps lumping everything under name of self-defense, including actions that are not self-defensive in any rational sense of the word.
And no, you have not presented any facts that the events of the border do not include the massacre of civilians.
You presented a red herring about 50 of the dead being members of Hamas, insinuating but failing to substantiate how that justifies killing them, whilst ignoring the fact that there were also 12 civilian dead, 8 of which were minors and about a 1000 more wounded.
The sooner you acknowledge these facts, the sooner your self-inflicted confusion will evaporate.
However given your history on this topic I won't be holding my breath.

Again, take your own advise: stop projecting your emotional blinders onto the facts and adress what actually happens and what people actually post, rather than your desperate mental gymnastics and straw-man accusations at other members.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:So again: Why is calling those protecting the borders defenders wrong, but calling the killing of 50 Hamas terrorists a "massacre of civilians" correct?

So again: why haven't you stopped beating your wife?