Israel declares seven-hour Gaza truce

[Ulysses G.]

No "deflection". I called them exactly what they are. Does that lead to - yet another - conspiracy theory?

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

I find the rampant Islamophobic and anti-Muslim tenor or some posters on this forum to be loathsome. But at least they're coming out of the shadows and being more upfront about it.

[Ulysses G.]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Anyone who kills innocent children is a terrorist in my book, including the Jewish terrorist group the IDF.

When IDF rain bullets, tank shells, and missiles into schools and hospitals clearly designated as refugee centers against all rules of engagement, even if Hamas is firing a rocket or riding a motorbike nearby. It’s illegal under international law to fire at an unclear target when doing so may cause harm to civilians.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/what-not-target-israel-201472915346949642.html

[Ulysses G.]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Anyone who kills innocent children is a terrorist in my book,including the Jewish terrorist group the IDF.

Sorry, but you can't make up your own definitions.

Terrorists purposely target civilians - like Hamas does. Soldiers in warfare, that cause collateral damage amongst civilians, while conducting operations against combatants, are not "terrorists" - no matter how regrettable it is.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

[Pattszero]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

Hilarious

For a country that doesn't have a policy of murdering children - they are world class at it.

[coma]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Anyone who kills innocent children is a terrorist in my book,including the Jewish terrorist group the IDF.

Sorry, but you can't make up your own definitions.

Terrorists purposely target civilians - like Hamas does. Soldiers in warfare, that cause collateral damage amongst civilians, while conducting operations against combatants, are not "terrorists" - no matter how regrettable it is.

" Terrorists " can only be deemed to be terrorist by western democracies it seems.

[kblaze]

Not a cop out at all.

Hamas does not, as rule, admit to combatant casualties, unless there is simply no denying it or after the fighting is done

(and then figures are markedly different from UN or Israeli numbers).

Now, who do you assume manages Gazan hospitals? Who does medical authorities answer to? Some posters seem to

forget that Hamas is the government. UN staff, NGO workers - the majority are Gazans, not foreigner. Assuming all are

both totally objective and not intimidated by Hammas will result in you being called naive.

Casualty figures tend to be used for PR campaigns in almost every conflict and are often disputed, this is true also for

the current one. You are welcome to do some digging and see that this is a repeated issue in almost every confrontation

in the Middle East.

You seem to understand this concept when it suits your argument -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/748665-gaza-school-strike-criminal-un/page-4#entry8195824

The number of casualties is one thing, how many of them were civilians is another.

I was not denying that there are a lot of casualties, just pointing out that not all are civilians and that manipulation

of figures is not a new phenomenon.

I didn't understand the part in bold above, when I clicked the link it took me to a page where I had two posts... which one are you referring to?

I agree some are being intimidated, some are giving false/exaggerated figures. But I also believe, because I'm rational, that some are giving true figures.

So like I said, adopt the 1/2 rule for the casualty figures if you'd like. Does it make it really any better? (and it should be applied to both the IDF and Hamas figures)

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

Hopefully, they will remember that next time they go to the ballot box and not elect a terrorist group to represent them again.

[Pattszero]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

Hopefully, they will remember that next time they go to the ballot box and not elect a terrorist group to represent them again.

55% of the electorate didn't vote for Hamas.

Are the Israeli smart bombs capable of detecting who did and who didn't?

[joepublic]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Anyone who kills innocent children is a terrorist in my book,including the Jewish terrorist group the IDF.

Sorry, but you can't make up your own definitions.

Terrorists purposely target civilians - like Hamas does. Soldiers in warfare, that cause collateral damage amongst civilians, while conducting operations against combatants, are not "terrorists" - no matter how regrettable it is.

The IDF does kill civilians deliberately - I don't see any uniforms on the people they kill, or are we just supposed to take their word for it. All they have to do is apply the label "militant' (what ever that means), and the target becomes legitimate.

Using your logic, Hamas can also claim to be targeting military targets, but due to the technological limitations of their weapons, the low accuracy causes regrettable collateral damage.

The whole idea of the terrorist label takes us away from the facts that people will resist by all means necessary, including their own lives if they must. It creates a false equivalency between the IDF and Hamas.

Edited August 6, 2014 by joepublic

[Ulysses G.]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Anyone who kills innocent children is a terrorist in my book,including the Jewish terrorist group the IDF.

Sorry, but you can't make up your own definitions.

Terrorists purposely target civilians - like Hamas does. Soldiers in warfare, that cause collateral damage amongst civilians, while conducting operations against combatants, are not "terrorists" - no matter how regrettable it is.

The IDF does kill civilians deliberately - I don't see any uniforms on the people they kill, or are we just supposed to take their word for it.

You don't see any uniforms because Hamas does not wear them. They are TERRORISTS.

[Jingthing]

I am sure many legit military targets in Gaza are not actually in uniform. War is a mess. Hopefully this one might be "over" for awhile. Let's hope that all can take the needed steps to prevent future casualties. Not that there is any logical reason to be optimistic ... but sometimes logic is overrated.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

Hopefully, they will remember that next time they go to the ballot box and not elect a terrorist group to represent them again.

55% of the electorate didn't vote for Hamas.

Hamas got the most votes. Most of the other Gazans voted for Fatah - 41% . Fatah cheered the recent kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers and called it a "masterstroke" and have a history of terrorism as well. They are not as fanatical as Hamas, but not too far off.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Pattszero]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

Hopefully, they will remember that next time they go to the ballot box and not elect a terrorist group to represent them again.

55% of the electorate didn't vote for Hamas.

Hamas got the most votes. Most of the other Gazans voted for Fatah - 41% . Fatah cheered the recent kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers and called it a "masterstroke" and have a history of terrorism as well. They are not as fanatical as Hamas, but not too far off.

Your attempt to justify this action under the cloak of democracy is a disgrace.

Have a long talk to yourself.

Innocents are dying - many of them born after the election.

[Morch]

Not a cop out at all.

Hamas does not, as rule, admit to combatant casualties, unless there is simply no denying it or after the fighting is done

(and then figures are markedly different from UN or Israeli numbers).

Now, who do you assume manages Gazan hospitals? Who does medical authorities answer to? Some posters seem to

forget that Hamas is the government. UN staff, NGO workers - the majority are Gazans, not foreigner. Assuming all are

both totally objective and not intimidated by Hammas will result in you being called naive.

Casualty figures tend to be used for PR campaigns in almost every conflict and are often disputed, this is true also for

the current one. You are welcome to do some digging and see that this is a repeated issue in almost every confrontation

in the Middle East.

You seem to understand this concept when it suits your argument -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/748665-gaza-school-strike-criminal-un/page-4#entry8195824

The number of casualties is one thing, how many of them were civilians is another.

I was not denying that there are a lot of casualties, just pointing out that not all are civilians and that manipulation

of figures is not a new phenomenon.

I didn't understand the part in bold above, when I clicked the link it took me to a page where I had two posts... which one are you referring to?

I agree some are being intimidated, some are giving false/exaggerated figures. But I also believe, because I'm rational, that some are giving true figures.

So like I said, adopt the 1/2 rule for the casualty figures if you'd like. Does it make it really any better? (and it should be applied to both the IDF and Hamas figures)

I was referring to the following post made by you (hope the link is more specific now):

The numbers are certainly high, but that figure doesn't seem likely as far as I've read on wiki;

"Estimates of the number of the people killed in the ten days of Black September range from three thousand to more than five thousand, although exact numbers are unknown. The Palestinian death toll in 11 days of fighting was estimated by Jordan at 3,400, while Palestinian sources often cite the number 5,000, mainly civilians, killed. Arafat at some point claimed that 10,000 had been killed."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/748665-gaza-school-strike-criminal-un/page-4#entry8196182

Steely Dan went with the 10,000 figure, while you (quite correctly) pointed out that there were different casualty estimates. Needless to say, the injured party tends to inflate numbers and the opposite is true for the other side.

My point was that the same is applicable to the current situation as well, and that it is usually hard to get accurate casualty lists while the fighting goes on. This is compounded by Hamas both routinely not admitting to militant death and applying pressure to local journalists and medical staff.

I do not think that Israeli sources (official and otherwise) dispute the total casualty toll, or at least not much. The contested figures have to do with the ratio of militants/civilians killed. While Israeli sources quote 40%-50% being militants, most media sources make this 20%-25% militants. Israeli sources may be suspected of bias, of course, but it is hardly the case that the figures re-hashed from Hamas sources are necessarily more reliable.

I believe you are rational, but then again I also believe you have never been to the Gaza Strip or had much experience with how things operate when the regime in place is something similar to Hamas. Look back on news coverage from the Gaza Strip and ask yourself how many times have you seen images of Hamas militants, Hamas rocket launches, Hamas militants casualties.

My personal preference would be having no casualties whatsoever. If I could make the numbers go down by 50%, I would. Not quite sure what was the point of your question - it wouldn't make deaths alright, it would just mean less people dying. Not perfect, just not as bad.

[Ulysses G.]

Your attempt to justify this action under the cloak of democracy is a disgrace.

Putting a stop to the thousands of rockets and mortars fired into Israel is all the justification needed for this campaign. The civilian deaths are the responsibility of Hamas.

[Ulysses G.]

Strip and ask yourself how many times have you seen images of Hamas militants, Hamas rocket launches, Hamas militants casualties.

Very few. Terrorists don't wear uniforms.

But according to twice-Pulitzered NYT photographer Tyler Hicks, theres no conspiracy to hide Hamas fighters from exposure or bias that views Israel as the militaristic aggressor. Its more that Hamas operates covertly, making it next to impossible to get images of its soldiers.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-times-photographer-heres-why-there-are-no-pics-of-hamas-fighters/

Hamas spotted firing rockets from densely-populated civilian areas.

There have been some disturbing videos emerging in the current Gaza conflict, but Indian TV network NDTV captured unbelievable footage of Islamic militants preparing to launch a rocket at Israel in a densely-populated civilian area.

The NDTV reporter spotted a blue tent being set up, with three people walking in and out of it. The next day, there was a rocket fired from that exact spot where he had spotted the tent. Its important to note that this was being worked on in a residential area full of hotels.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/indian-tv-gets-footage-of-militants-preparing-to-fire-rocket-from-civilian-area/

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Noted. You object to calling an Islamic terrorist group an Islamic terrorist group - even though that is exactly what they are.

Anyone who kills innocent children is a terrorist in my book,including the Jewish terrorist group the IDF.

Sorry, but you can't make up your own definitions.

Terrorists purposely target civilians - like Hamas does. Soldiers in warfare, that cause collateral damage amongst civilians, while conducting operations against combatants, are not "terrorists" - no matter how regrettable it is.

The IDF does kill civilians deliberately - I don't see any uniforms on the people they kill, or are we just supposed to take their word for it. All they have to do is apply the label "militant' (what ever that means), and the target becomes legitimate.

Using your logic, Hamas can also claim to be targeting military targets, but due to the technological limitations of their weapons, the low accuracy causes regrettable collateral damage.

The whole idea of the terrorist label takes us away from the facts that people will resist by all means necessary, including their own lives if they must. It creates a false equivalency between the IDF and Hamas.

You do not see uniforms on Palestinian casualties because Hamas does not always wear uniforms (although they do sometimes use IDF uniforms when raiding into Israel), and because Hamas policy is not to admit to militants deaths unless there's simply no denying it. Apparently, you are happy with taking their word for it.

If you suppose that all casualties are civilians, then the IDF is probably the lousiest army ever, and I do not think that is a claim that goes down well when applying the other common Palestinian argument about being an underdog pitted against the might of the Israel. Also, there would be questions regarding those Palestinian "civilians" killed while popping out of tunnels leading into Israel, for example. Don't let the facts confuse you, though.

Hamas does not claim to target military facilities much, and does not make a fuss when it hits civilian targets. There are no internal inquiries when this happens. The technological argument presented is bogus - firing low accuracy weapons into civilian areas is considered problematic in the eyes of international law - exactly the sort of thing Israel is criticized about right now (but not that much of the same criticism applied to Hamas).

So, in your world, there are no terrorists?

[Pattszero]

Your attempt to justify this action under the cloak of democracy is a disgrace.

Putting a stop to the thousands of rockets and mortars fired into Israel is all the justification needed for this campaign. The civilian deaths are the responsibility of Hamas.

Laughable.

[Ulysses G.]

You are probably the only one giggling.

[Bwanatickey]

You are probably the only one giggling.

Wait for the post mortem results, to early to jump to any final conclusion, the Israelites are Gods chosen people.

Sorry I have been Bible punched since I was a Baby, that is what the Bible told Me.

[joepublic]

The IDF does kill civilians deliberately - I don't see any uniforms on the people they kill, or are we just supposed to take their word for it. All they have to do is apply the label "militant' (what ever that means), and the target becomes legitimate.

Using your logic, Hamas can also claim to be targeting military targets, but due to the technological limitations of their weapons, the low accuracy causes regrettable collateral damage.

The whole idea of the terrorist label takes us away from the facts that people will resist by all means necessary, including their own lives if they must. It creates a false equivalency between the IDF and Hamas.

You do not see uniforms on Palestinian casualties because Hamas does not always wear uniforms (although they do sometimes use IDF uniforms when raiding into Israel), and because Hamas policy is not to admit to militants deaths unless there's simply no denying it. Apparently, you are happy with taking their word for it.

If you suppose that all casualties are civilians, then the IDF is probably the lousiest army ever, and I do not think that is a claim that goes down well when applying the other common Palestinian argument about being an underdog pitted against the might of the Israel. Also, there would be questions regarding those Palestinian "civilians" killed while popping out of tunnels leading into Israel, for example. Don't let the facts confuse you, though.

Hamas does not claim to target military facilities much, and does not make a fuss when it hits civilian targets. There are no internal inquiries when this happens. The technological argument presented is bogus - firing low accuracy weapons into civilian areas is considered problematic in the eyes of international law - exactly the sort of thing Israel is criticized about right now (but not that much of the same criticism applied to Hamas).

So, in your world, there are no terrorists?

A terrorist is someone who creates terror - armies or individuals can do this. Therefore the IDF and the resistance can be called terrorists if you want to debate a word. The IDF, Mossad, MI5, the CIA and Al Quieda, Abu Sayyaf have all targeted and killed civilians, so whats the point in the word terrorist?

The rest of your argument assumes a moral, organizational and military equivalence between the IDF and the civilian population resisting the occupation - as if they have the same resources and choices - they don't - and that's the big Zionist lie I'm trying to draw attention to.

[joepublic]

Yes, that is the difference. Israel clearly does not have a policy of murdering children though their military tactics do tragically result in children being killed. So Israel is not a terror group. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that the civilians of Gaza are feeling terrorized.

Hopefully, they will remember that next time they go to the ballot box and not elect a terrorist group to represent them again.

I believe that "Collective punishment" is the term you are looking for. Disgusting

[joepublic]

Israel Speaks: “We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”

Israeli army summarily executed fleeing civilians in southern Gaza

HRW: Israel targets fleeing Palestinian civilians

Lets add to the the blowing up of the power station and schools - the effect of which is to target and punish civilians - Israel is a terrorist by any and all defintions

Edited August 6, 2014 by joepublic

[Morch]

The IDF does kill civilians deliberately - I don't see any uniforms on the people they kill, or are we just supposed to take their word for it. All they have to do is apply the label "militant' (what ever that means), and the target becomes legitimate.

Using your logic, Hamas can also claim to be targeting military targets, but due to the technological limitations of their weapons, the low accuracy causes regrettable collateral damage.

The whole idea of the terrorist label takes us away from the facts that people will resist by all means necessary, including their own lives if they must. It creates a false equivalency between the IDF and Hamas.

You do not see uniforms on Palestinian casualties because Hamas does not always wear uniforms (although they do sometimes use IDF uniforms when raiding into Israel), and because Hamas policy is not to admit to militants deaths unless there's simply no denying it. Apparently, you are happy with taking their word for it.

If you suppose that all casualties are civilians, then the IDF is probably the lousiest army ever, and I do not think that is a claim that goes down well when applying the other common Palestinian argument about being an underdog pitted against the might of the Israel. Also, there would be questions regarding those Palestinian "civilians" killed while popping out of tunnels leading into Israel, for example. Don't let the facts confuse you, though.

Hamas does not claim to target military facilities much, and does not make a fuss when it hits civilian targets. There are no internal inquiries when this happens. The technological argument presented is bogus - firing low accuracy weapons into civilian areas is considered problematic in the eyes of international law - exactly the sort of thing Israel is criticized about right now (but not that much of the same criticism applied to Hamas).

So, in your world, there are no terrorists?

A terrorist is someone who creates terror - armies or individuals can do this. Therefore the IDF and the resistance can be called terrorists if you want to debate a word. The IDF, Mossad, MI5, the CIA and Al Quieda, Abu Sayyaf have all targeted and killed civilians, so whats the point in the word terrorist?

The rest of your argument assumes a moral, organizational and military equivalence between the IDF and the civilian population resisting the occupation - as if they have the same resources and choices - they don't - and that's the big Zionist lie I'm trying to draw attention to.

That is your own definition of what a terrorist is. I doubt if it is accepted globally.

If you think MI5 is the same as AQ, then we have little to debate about, simply different worlds and concepts.

The rest of my argument assumes non of the nonsense you attribute it. Admitting to militant casualties on their

side got nothing to do with resources, firing rockets at civilians rather than targeting army units is indeed a choice.

The Hamas is not "civilian population resisting occupation". That is a pretty silly claim when a lot of posters try

to make the point that not all Gazans are terrorists. The Hamas is a terrorist organization and no amount of laundry

soap will change that.

[Morch]

Israel Speaks: “We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”

Israeli army summarily executed fleeing civilians in southern Gaza

HRW: Israel targets fleeing Palestinian civilians

Lets add to the the blowing up of the power station and schools - the effect of which is to target and punish civilians - Israel is a terrorist by any and all defintions

Quite a collection of balanced source you piled up there .

Wouldn't expect anything else from them, so glad to be assured all is as it used to be.

[joecoolfrog]

Hamas are doing a disservice to the people they claim to represent but the Ultra Zionists and fundamental religious groups are doing great damage to Israel , it takes two to tango !

[Johpa]

You don't see any uniforms because Hamas does not wear them. They are TERRORISTS.

Hamas should not be labeled terrorists as that term tends to under emphasize the existential threat that Hamas poses to Israel and to the more slowly evolving existential threat Hamas poses to the West. They are a formidable well organized fighting force representing a very orthodox interpretation of Islam, no different than ISIS in Iraq. They have a long term strategic vision, the Caliphate. Netanyahu understands their long term strategy but tactically he is a blunderbuss who fell for the first baited hook thrown his way.