chuckd Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if the drug cartels in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. A better analogy would be if it was the Mexican government doing that with orders from Mexico City. Hamas IS the government of Gaza. Changed per your suggestion. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 What is this about counting numbers? What's the relevancy? What's relevant about rockets that missed? Shoot at me and miss and watch what happens to you. Is that so hard to understand? There have been countless thousands of rockets fired into Israel and every one of them was attempted murder. Rockets can kill more than one person. The fact that many missed is just bla bla bla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgal Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if the drug cartels in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. A better analogy would be if it was the Mexican government doing that with orders from Mexico City. Hamas IS the government of Gaza. Changed per your suggestion. Thx. Was El Paso not in previous Aztec territory along the Rio Grande ? Edited January 19, 2015 by Thorgal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 What is this about counting numbers? What's the relevancy? What's relevant about rockets that missed? Shoot at me and miss and watch what happens to you. Is that so hard to understand? There have been countless thousands of rockets fired into Israel and every one of them was attempted murder. Rockets can kill more than one person. The fact that many missed is just bla bla bla. As if it's a bad thing for Israel to have a good defense and plenty of bomb shelters to protect her citizens from attacks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if the drug cartels in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. A better analogy would be if it was the Mexican government doing that with orders from Mexico City. Hamas IS the government of Gaza. Changed per your suggestion. Thx. Was El Paso not in previous Aztec territory along the Rio Grande ? Actually no. Back to school with you, mate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if a militant branch of the Mexican government in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. Edited to change "Drug cartels" to "a militant branch of the Mexican government". Well a question/what if is fine .....but we would start at the beginning Mexico would not have a grievance with the USA for stealing their land & blocking them like POW's in areas. Nor would the USA be blocking their access to the sea Nor would USA severely limit their imports of anything but weapons Yet Israel does all those things. Limiting to basic supplies & at times not even that As a sidebar this is what I found so funny about Morch claiming basically ........ "That Israel invests its best efforts to protect its citizens, and Hamas does nothing of the sort - is not debated" Yet it is well known that the most severely restricted import is building materials of any kind. Especially Concrete & Steel...Israel claims being they do not want Hamas to build shelters or tunnels Mainly they do not want them rebuilding homes/cities they smash with bombs or bulldozers in their ever greater quest for Israel expansion lands. No country in the world that operates POW camp like blockades should be tolerated much less helped. So basically to your what if the answer would be of course defend/return fire. But again it would never happen as the US would not do what Israel does... and yet our tax dollars in great quantities go to help these? Maybe better to ask would the US fire on Mexico if Mexico did what Israel does? Maybe Mexico grabs Texas & locks its people into areas denying them this or that Should the US fire on Mexico? Should those locked in Texas seek revenge? Edited January 20, 2015 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 protecting Israel claims being they do not want Hamas to build shelters or tunnels Which is exactly what Hamas has done - shelters and tunnels only for hiding terrorists, not for protecting Palestinian civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakboong Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Why is it that the crimes that Hamas are alleged to have committed are measured in numbers of rockets fired, whereas the alleged crimes against Israel (and every other army in history) is measured in casualties? Could it be because the score would read: Israeli civilians killed by rockets 3 , Palestinians killed by Israeli army 1,951[/size] Because its the thought that counts. It is not Hamas operational performance that is considered. That Israel invests its best efforts to protect its citizens, and Hamas does nothing of the sort - is not debated. Israel invests its best efforts to protect its citizens & Hamas does not? If Israel's best effort is asking American Taxpayers to bend over & spell Run well I guess I agree since they milk us for 8.5 Million USD a DAY! Hamas or more deservedly Palestine gets 0 USD per day in that type of aid. So please...........Israel invests in begging thru lobbyist & what ever back room deals of other peoples money to protect<sic> theirs Keeping harping on the same talking point while disregarding facts will not change the way things are. This been gone through many times on this forum - most of the USA security related funding to Israel is being spent in the USA, buying from USA firms. Not all of it, most. Objections could be made on moral grounds, or on claiming that it does not serve the USA's interests, but that is not quite the same thing as claiming all those tax dollars are given away to Israel. Regardless of this well worn issue, Israel invests in shelters, alarms, and other means of passive defense. Hamas, on the other hand, builds underground facilities to be used solely by leadership and its military wing. Ordinary Gazans are encouraged to go up on the roofs during attacks. So yes, there is a difference there, USA aid notwithstanding The ICC thing has very little to do with USA aid to Israel. Rather than raging at Israel, would have made more sense turning all that anger against successive USA administrations upholding this policy. Unfortunately, the average Palestinian IQ ,is 20-30 pts lower than the Israelis. That is not about to change so I guess, we just have to work around it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If we take the emotion away from both sides of this argument then can it not be said that if two teams dispute a goal then they should both agree to an independent judiciary. This is what appears to be happening here. One side is saying we will cooperate with an outside judge and the other side is saying we will not. Why????? You said yourself that sides "should both agree to an independent judiciary". So if the Palestinian side decides unilaterally who to turn to, how does it make an agreed upon decision by both sides? Israel does is not a member of the ICC because it has a rather long experience of dealing with the UN and its various bodies. To say that the UN is independent, objective and fair would be incorrect. It is a political marketplace, and its decisions reflect power plays and interests. Not so different from national level politics. Furthermore, the ICC will not mediate between Israel and the Palestinians. It might, if things come to that, investigate and rule on specific incidents. What is happening here is that one sides applies diplomatic pressure on the other, nothing new. Israel has never and never would agree to any independent body investigating its war crimes. So your argument about a Palestinian unilateral decision is hogwash obfuscation. The US isn't going to stop Israel's atrocities with wrist slapping censures that they are "unfortunate' and "unhelpful'. So 3 cheers for the Palestinians that they are finally doing something to protect themselves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if a militant branch of the Mexican government in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. Edited to change "Drug cartels" to "a militant branch of the Mexican government". This would be more akin to the state of things between Israel, Lebanon and the Hezbollah. The Palestinian issue is way more complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if a militant branch of the Mexican government in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. Edited to change "Drug cartels" to "a militant branch of the Mexican government". Well a question/what if is fine .....but we would start at the beginning Mexico would not have a grievance with the USA for stealing their land & blocking them like POW's in areas. Nor would the USA be blocking their access to the sea Nor would USA severely limit their imports of anything but weapons Yet Israel does all those things. Limiting to basic supplies & at times not even that As a sidebar this is what I found so funny about Morch claiming basically ........ "That Israel invests its best efforts to protect its citizens, and Hamas does nothing of the sort - is not debated" Yet it is well known that the most severely restricted import is building materials of any kind. Especially Concrete & Steel...Israel claims being they do not want Hamas to build shelters or tunnels Mainly they do not want them rebuilding homes/cities they smash with bombs or bulldozers in their ever greater quest for Israel expansion lands. No country in the world that operates POW camp like blockades should be tolerated much less helped. So basically to your what if the answer would be of course defend/return fire. But again it would never happen as the US would not do what Israel does... and yet our tax dollars in great quantities go to help these? Maybe better to ask would the US fire on Mexico if Mexico did what Israel does? Maybe Mexico grabs Texas & locks its people into areas denying them this or that Should the US fire on Mexico? Should those locked in Texas seek revenge? Got the order wrong. Construction materials import to the Gaza Strip was introduced following illegitimate usage by Hamas, not the other way around. Israel was (and is) willing to allow renews imports of construction materials, with the condition that usage of these will be for civilian purposes only. The Hamas mostly rejected proposed ideas how to go about this. After the last round of fighting restrictions were eased, and were once again taken advantage of by Hamas. If, as implied, the issue of no civil defense effort by Hamas is a product of Israeli restrictions on import of required construction materials, one would need to explain the Hamas finding resources to protect its own members (while not making underground facilities available to the general public), construct attack tunnels leading into Israel and for ongoing production of weaponry. The claim that Israeli restrictions on import of construction materials stem from objections for Gazans rebuilding their homes is not supported by anything much. As far as I am aware, there was no Israeli reference to objection regarding Gazans building civilian shelters, but rather to Hamas building underground military facilities. Other than Hamas not interested in outside overseeing of construction materials usage, it bears in mind to remember that having control of the trade in construction materials (smuggled or lawful) brings in important revenues for Hamas. Also a rife source of scams. These issues were covered in previous topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If we take the emotion away from both sides of this argument then can it not be said that if two teams dispute a goal then they should both agree to an independent judiciary. This is what appears to be happening here. One side is saying we will cooperate with an outside judge and the other side is saying we will not. Why????? You said yourself that sides "should both agree to an independent judiciary". So if the Palestinian side decides unilaterally who to turn to, how does it make an agreed upon decision by both sides? Israel does is not a member of the ICC because it has a rather long experience of dealing with the UN and its various bodies. To say that the UN is independent, objective and fair would be incorrect. It is a political marketplace, and its decisions reflect power plays and interests. Not so different from national level politics. Furthermore, the ICC will not mediate between Israel and the Palestinians. It might, if things come to that, investigate and rule on specific incidents. What is happening here is that one sides applies diplomatic pressure on the other, nothing new. Israel has never and never would agree to any independent body investigating its war crimes. So your argument about a Palestinian unilateral decision is hogwash obfuscation. The US isn't going to stop Israel's atrocities with wrist slapping censures that they are "unfortunate' and "unhelpful'. So 3 cheers for the Palestinians that they are finally doing something to protect themselves. I don't know about "never". The rest of the claim made rests on the assumption that the body in question is indeed independent, something which is not necessarily made true by simply saying it is so. The UN and its various bodies are neither free from bias, political pressures and the whole range of afflictions evident in national organizations. Enough that one takes the way things are put "investigating its war crimes", as an example - if it is already decided, prior to any investigation or trial that there were war crimes committed, then how is this exactly a balanced position? The Palestinian move, by itself, will not stop Israel from doing anything, even if somewhere down the line it will materialize into a relevant ruling by the ICC. It is, overall, indeed better that they attempt diplomacy rather than violence, but again - the domestic factors behind the move are the driving force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Got the order wrong. Construction materials import to the Gaza Strip was introduced following illegitimate usage by Hamas, not the other way around. Does not change the fact that your previous claim "That Israel invests its best efforts to protect its citizens, and Hamas does nothing of the sort - is not debated"... overlooked the fact They have no material to build with anyway....H3ll kids have been shot & killed for picking up concrete chunks too near the fence Also "Israel will only permit their entry into Gaza to facilitate construction projects in Gaza which have been authorized by the PA and implemented and monitored by the international community". Somehow I am guessing bomb shelters would not be allowed. Kids could always go to the UN school for protection As for Hamas they were elected in 2006 In 2007 the Israel claim was "Since Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, Israel has generally barred imports of steel rebar, gravel, and cement, which it considers “dual-use goods” that can be diverted for military uses. Palestinian armed groups did use building materials smuggled from Egypt to build military tunnels into Israel, but Israel’s security concerns could be met by a monitoring regime rather than a blanket prohibition on imports, Human Rights Watch said." Anyway whats the difference? Who does Israel care to listen to? Which brings us back to the small hope this court can see & say something They are toothless yes...As far as Nations go it will be they that decide if there is criminal charges to enforce when war criminals try to pass thru their country. But if enough is shown to the worlds citizens too will have a say in what ever small way they can in how they in turn treat those they deem to be committing the wrongful acts. None know 100% at this point which side that will be. But having someone look is better than having just supporters of either side making claims of they did this 1st & they did that etc etc etc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli's Palestinian terrorists have shot thousands of rockets into Israel, killing Israeli civilians, including children, and wounding others, as well as causing damage to infrastructure. Hamas fire them indiscriminately and intend to kill Israeli citizens. The attacks have killed 50 people and injured more than 1900 people, but their main consequence is the creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli citizenry. No country on earth would put up with this and most would strike back a lot harder than Israel has. l . No people on earth would put up with having their land, air and sea space blockaded for 8 years, their economy and freedom stifled, and even their calorie intake counted to keep the imprisoned on starvation rations, with their oppressor periodically provoking wars and murdering 1,000s of innocent civilians. Naturally they resist...who wouldn't. Edited January 20, 2015 by dexterm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Got the order wrong. Construction materials import to the Gaza Strip was introduced following illegitimate usage by Hamas, not the other way around. Does not change the fact that your previous claim "That Israel invests its best efforts to protect its citizens, and Hamas does nothing of the sort - is not debated"... overlooked the fact They have no material to build with anyway....H3ll kids have been shot & killed for picking up concrete chunks too near the fence Also "Israel will only permit their entry into Gaza to facilitate construction projects in Gaza which have been authorized by the PA and implemented and monitored by the international community". Somehow I am guessing bomb shelters would not be allowed. Kids could always go to the UN school for protection As for Hamas they were elected in 2006 In 2007 the Israel claim was "Since Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, Israel has generally barred imports of steel rebar, gravel, and cement, which it considers “dual-use goods” that can be diverted for military uses. Palestinian armed groups did use building materials smuggled from Egypt to build military tunnels into Israel, but Israel’s security concerns could be met by a monitoring regime rather than a blanket prohibition on imports, Human Rights Watch said." Anyway whats the difference? Who does Israel care to listen to? Which brings us back to the small hope this court can see & say something They are toothless yes...As far as Nations go it will be they that decide if there is criminal charges to enforce when war criminals try to pass thru their country. But if enough is shown to the worlds citizens too will have a say in what ever small way they can in how they in turn treat those they deem to be committing the wrongful acts. None know 100% at this point which side that will be. But having someone look is better than having just supporters of either side making claims of they did this 1st & they did that etc etc etc I did not overlook any facts. If, as implied, Hamas does not have construction materials - how does it manage to construct underground facilities for its own members, attack tunnels leading into Israel and produce more rockets? For that matter, how come Hamas leaders in Gaza can manage to build new houses for themselves? The best one could claim, considering the above, is that Hamas might have a different set of priorities. This may well be true, but still does not make them any more caring for the safety of their own people. Other than imagining that Israel prohibits or will prohibit the construction of civilian bomb shelters in Gaza, is there any factual information supporting this notion? Was there even a request to construct such shelters by the Hamas which was denied? One would have though that would make one hell of PR victory. Not aware that Human Rights Watch's expertise covers security considerations. Moreover, without the Hamas cooperating there could be no monitoring regime on use of construction materials. Is there anything suggesting that Hamas agrees and upholds such a cooperation with a monitoring regime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. I did not clip Seastallion's name from the post (it is linked below), blame my multi-quoting skills and the quote limitation on the forum. And of course, you missed the point (deliberately?) - Seastallion went on about supposed "brushing aside" of Palestinian deaths, while at the same time claiming that rockets did not "harm a soul" on the other side. Pretty ironic for someone assuming a humanistic and higher moral ground approach. This is the context I was referring to, As I did not contest the casualty figures, I have no idea what it is you imagine that I contest. What I did point out, was that Hamas shares the responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties - this by not taking any means to protect civilian whatsoever (while doing a good job of digging its own people underground), dissuading civilians from evacuating, encouraging civilians to face attacks, and on a more strategic level - choosing to engage in a conflict which was sure to result in many civilian casualties, and not for the first time. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent ruler who cares first and foremost for the safety of its people. Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants. Oh come now........your rudeness sweetened by the good cop persona you like to play is not hidden from anyone so please dont.......even play that role When you want to you put your little snipes in for many such as myself,Seastallion, Dexterm,joepublic,7x7 etc. etc. etc You just try & dress them in a smile...Yet the intent is clear...rudeness As is this merry go round you now ride defining context....Posts are for all to read & define None need your definition be the sole definition It is clear to me what Seastallion was saying & as if you did not know here it is anyway... The force of retaliation is off the charts disproportionately...If you claim to not know that or not realize that is what Seastallion is saying....well you may be the only one in the world But of course that is not the case is it? Yes of course Hamas shares responsibility none have ever claimed otherwise. Yet many can also see a futile acting out in frustration of decades of being encamped like prisoners while watching their homes dozed & lands stolen. It cannot be any more blatant that what it is & has been FOR DECADES This is 2015.........NO COUNTRY...other than this untouchable karma riddled mess would attempt such a feat ...yet Israel does as the world shakes its head. You may carry on with your JDL good cop routine & try to act like there is a difference & you are not rude/quipy when it suits your need but please don't think all are blind. Lastly....you said..."Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants." Classic !!!! But I thought we save that for the JDL bad cops to claim?? As it is so blatantly trying to side step the sheer number ....2000 DEAD...... in ONE Attack...........ONE ATTACK What was the rocket toll/Dead Israeli's for 10 years? Oh yeah 28 dead Carry on Morch yes....but where this exchange originated was Morch's comment ("It's the thought that counts") in reply to a question about why rocket numbers from Hamas and not Israeli casualty figures are quoted, when in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important. Ironic that one of Israel's mainstays of it's pack of victim cards is the Jewish death toll from Europe in the early to mid 1940's, but when it comes to the current conflict where Israeli deaths are comparatively insignificant, it's the number of ineffectual rockets that's important. And you forgot...according to Morch, we should subtract the number of Israeli soldiers from the total death toll, as they don't count. ("A number of the Palestinian deaths were militants" (or words to that effect)) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli's Palestinian terrorists have shot thousands of rockets into Israel, killing Israeli civilians, including children, and wounding others, as well as causing damage to infrastructure. Hamas fire them indiscriminately and intend to kill Israeli citizens. The attacks have killed 50 people and injured more than 1900 people, but their main consequence is the creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli citizenry. No country on earth would put up with this and most would strike back a lot harder than Israel has. l . No people on earth would put up with having their land, air and sea space blockaded for 8 years, their economy and freedom stifled, and even their calorie intake counted to keep the imprisoned on starvation rations, with their oppressor periodically provoking wars and murdering 1,000s of innocent civilians. Naturally they resist...who wouldn't. Right, Hamas is always provoked. Strangely reminiscent of notions in other running topics. Oddly enough, those 8 years coincide with Hamas's rule, but that does not feature in the account above. There are many ways to resist occupation and injustice, the way Hamas does things is neither very conductive for the overall Palestinian cause nor for the safety and well-being of of the civilians under its rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 You're right about one thing; the gravity of it. It's a shame (literally) that the gravity of the horrendous casualty figures is so often brushed aside. It is not brushed aside, except in your repeated attempts to claim it is. Saying that the counting total casualty figures, or comparison of total casualty figures is not exactly the way things are conducted as far as the ICC goes is not discounting it, but just the way things are. Posters often waive "international law" when it suits them, and as far as I am aware, there is no casualty figures meter applied to such proceedings. On the other hand, it is a shame (literally as well) that some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility by Hamas for the very same casualties (to be clear, the Palestinian ones), but rather use it as a one sided propaganda tool. "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. Well, that's your own interpretation. Repeating it out of context (which was thoroughly explained) is a choice. Accusation of brushing things aside, while refusing to address Hamas responsibility (by no means absolute) for the casualties is an interesting position. The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. Read again or stop with the word-twisting...I never claimed that rockets never harmed a soul. I said a large number never harmed a soul. I didn't do the maths, but something over 99% never harmed a soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. I did not clip Seastallion's name from the post (it is linked below), blame my multi-quoting skills and the quote limitation on the forum. And of course, you missed the point (deliberately?) - Seastallion went on about supposed "brushing aside" of Palestinian deaths, while at the same time claiming that rockets did not "harm a soul" on the other side. Pretty ironic for someone assuming a humanistic and higher moral ground approach. This is the context I was referring to, As I did not contest the casualty figures, I have no idea what it is you imagine that I contest. What I did point out, was that Hamas shares the responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties - this by not taking any means to protect civilian whatsoever (while doing a good job of digging its own people underground), dissuading civilians from evacuating, encouraging civilians to face attacks, and on a more strategic level - choosing to engage in a conflict which was sure to result in many civilian casualties, and not for the first time. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent ruler who cares first and foremost for the safety of its people. Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants. Oh come now........your rudeness sweetened by the good cop persona you like to play is not hidden from anyone so please dont.......even play that role When you want to you put your little snipes in for many such as myself,Seastallion, Dexterm,joepublic,7x7 etc. etc. etc You just try & dress them in a smile...Yet the intent is clear...rudeness As is this merry go round you now ride defining context....Posts are for all to read & define None need your definition be the sole definition It is clear to me what Seastallion was saying & as if you did not know here it is anyway... The force of retaliation is off the charts disproportionately...If you claim to not know that or not realize that is what Seastallion is saying....well you may be the only one in the world But of course that is not the case is it? Yes of course Hamas shares responsibility none have ever claimed otherwise. Yet many can also see a futile acting out in frustration of decades of being encamped like prisoners while watching their homes dozed & lands stolen. It cannot be any more blatant that what it is & has been FOR DECADES This is 2015.........NO COUNTRY...other than this untouchable karma riddled mess would attempt such a feat ...yet Israel does as the world shakes its head. You may carry on with your JDL good cop routine & try to act like there is a difference & you are not rude/quipy when it suits your need but please don't think all are blind. Lastly....you said..."Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants." Classic !!!! But I thought we save that for the JDL bad cops to claim?? As it is so blatantly trying to side step the sheer number ....2000 DEAD...... in ONE Attack...........ONE ATTACK What was the rocket toll/Dead Israeli's for 10 years? Oh yeah 28 dead Carry on Morch yes....but where this exchange originated was Morch's comment ("It's the thought that counts") in reply to a question about why rocket numbers from Hamas and not Israeli casualty figures are quoted, when in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important. Ironic that one of Israel's mainstays of it's pack of victim cards is the Jewish death toll from Europe in the early to mid 1940's, but when it comes to the current conflict where Israeli deaths are comparatively insignificant, it's the number of ineffectual rockets that's important. And you forgot...according to Morch, we should subtract the number of Israeli soldiers from the total death toll, as they don't count. ("A number of the Palestinian deaths were militants" (or words to that effect)) The statement that "in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important" is not something which I subscribe to, nor was it demonstrated as true. Cause and manner of conducting warfare are often cited as being key, for example, although there are probably many ways to consider things. I do not normally bring up the Holocaust in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not as justification nor as anything else. Barking up the wrong tree. It can be pointed out though, that the Jews in Europe were, for the most part, citizens of the relevant countries and that they were not engaged in either armed struggle against these nations. The comparisons made in support of either side's claims are usually crude, if that. Did not suggest subtracting any numbers from any casualty lists. Soldiers are legitimate targets almost by definition. Same goes for armed militants and terrorists. I merely pointed out that not all the Palestinian casualties were civilians as often implied by lumping them together (something which, interestingly enough, is not usually applied by media sources to Israeli casualties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) It is not brushed aside, except in your repeated attempts to claim it is.Saying that the counting total casualty figures, or comparison of total casualty figures is not exactly the way things are conducted as far as the ICC goes is not discounting it, but just the way things are. Posters often waive "international law" when it suits them, and as far as I am aware, there is no casualty figures meter applied to such proceedings. On the other hand, it is a shame (literally as well) that some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility by Hamas for the very same casualties (to be clear, the Palestinian ones), but rather use it as a one sided propaganda tool. "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. Well, that's your own interpretation. Repeating it out of context (which was thoroughly explained) is a choice. Accusation of brushing things aside, while refusing to address Hamas responsibility (by no means absolute) for the casualties is an interesting position. The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. Read again or stop with the word-twisting...I never claimed that rockets never harmed a soul. I said a large number never harmed a soul. I didn't do the maths, but something over 99% never harmed a soul. *posts removed to allow reply* No word twisting. This is how I read your post, and I do not think my interpretation is unreasonable. "Never harmed a soul" makes them sound almost like fluffy cotton buds falling out of the sky, and well...that's not the case. There's a yearly rocket festival in several Thai provinces, might want to try it as a wee taste of what these things are like. Seriously doubt many would agree to live under rocket threat even given the assurance that "something over 99% never harmed a soul".... And it still sounds ironic combined with the "brushing aside casualties" and "callousness" bits. Edited January 20, 2015 by Morch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. I did not clip Seastallion's name from the post (it is linked below), blame my multi-quoting skills and the quote limitation on the forum. And of course, you missed the point (deliberately?) - Seastallion went on about supposed "brushing aside" of Palestinian deaths, while at the same time claiming that rockets did not "harm a soul" on the other side. Pretty ironic for someone assuming a humanistic and higher moral ground approach. This is the context I was referring to, As I did not contest the casualty figures, I have no idea what it is you imagine that I contest. What I did point out, was that Hamas shares the responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties - this by not taking any means to protect civilian whatsoever (while doing a good job of digging its own people underground), dissuading civilians from evacuating, encouraging civilians to face attacks, and on a more strategic level - choosing to engage in a conflict which was sure to result in many civilian casualties, and not for the first time. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent ruler who cares first and foremost for the safety of its people. Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants. Oh come now........your rudeness sweetened by the good cop persona you like to play is not hidden from anyone so please dont.......even play that role When you want to you put your little snipes in for many such as myself,Seastallion, Dexterm,joepublic,7x7 etc. etc. etc You just try & dress them in a smile...Yet the intent is clear...rudeness As is this merry go round you now ride defining context....Posts are for all to read & define None need your definition be the sole definition It is clear to me what Seastallion was saying & as if you did not know here it is anyway... The force of retaliation is off the charts disproportionately...If you claim to not know that or not realize that is what Seastallion is saying....well you may be the only one in the world But of course that is not the case is it? Yes of course Hamas shares responsibility none have ever claimed otherwise. Yet many can also see a futile acting out in frustration of decades of being encamped like prisoners while watching their homes dozed & lands stolen. It cannot be any more blatant that what it is & has been FOR DECADES This is 2015.........NO COUNTRY...other than this untouchable karma riddled mess would attempt such a feat ...yet Israel does as the world shakes its head. You may carry on with your JDL good cop routine & try to act like there is a difference & you are not rude/quipy when it suits your need but please don't think all are blind. Lastly....you said..."Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants." Classic !!!! But I thought we save that for the JDL bad cops to claim?? As it is so blatantly trying to side step the sheer number ....2000 DEAD...... in ONE Attack...........ONE ATTACK What was the rocket toll/Dead Israeli's for 10 years? Oh yeah 28 dead Carry on Morch yes....but where this exchange originated was Morch's comment ("It's the thought that counts") in reply to a question about why rocket numbers from Hamas and not Israeli casualty figures are quoted, when in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important. Ironic that one of Israel's mainstays of it's pack of victim cards is the Jewish death toll from Europe in the early to mid 1940's, but when it comes to the current conflict where Israeli deaths are comparatively insignificant, it's the number of ineffectual rockets that's important. And you forgot...according to Morch, we should subtract the number of Israeli soldiers from the total death toll, as they don't count. ("A number of the Palestinian deaths were militants" (or words to that effect)) The statement that "in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important" is not something which I subscribe to, nor was it demonstrated as true. Cause and manner of conducting warfare are often cited as being key, for example, although there are probably many ways to consider things. I do not normally bring up the Holocaust in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not as justification nor as anything else. Barking up the wrong tree. It can be pointed out though, that the Jews in Europe were, for the most part, citizens of the relevant countries and that they were not engaged in either armed struggle against these nations. The comparisons made in support of either side's claims are usually crude, if that. Did not suggest subtracting any numbers from any casualty lists. Soldiers are legitimate targets almost by definition. Same goes for armed militants and terrorists. I merely pointed out that not all the Palestinian casualties were civilians as often implied by lumping them together (something which, interestingly enough, is not usually applied by media sources to Israeli casualties). You have missed the point of me mentioning the Holocaust. Horrible figures: Europe; Over 6 million Jews killed, Rwanda; Nearly 1 million killed; Cambodia: Around 1.5 million killed, Iraq: 500 000 killed Afghanistan; 20 000 killed. Gaza (last 10 years) 5000 killed. Israel: 10 000 rockets fired at them. Doesn't look significant if the death toll was used instead, though, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Well, that's your own interpretation. Repeating it out of context (which was thoroughly explained) is a choice. Accusation of brushing things aside, while refusing to address Hamas responsibility (by no means absolute) for the casualties is an interesting position. The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. Read again or stop with the word-twisting...I never claimed that rockets never harmed a soul. I said a large number never harmed a soul. I didn't do the maths, but something over 99% never harmed a soul. *posts removed to allow reply* No word twisting. This is how I read your post, and I do not think my interpretation is unreasonable. "Never harmed a soul" makes them sound almost like fluffy cotton buds falling out of the sky, and well...that's not the case. There's a yearly rocket festival in several Thai provinces, might want to try it as a wee taste of what these things are like. Seriously doubt many would agree to live under rocket threat even given the assurance that "something over 99% never harmed a soul".... And it still sounds ironic combined with the "brushing aside casualties" and "callousness" bits. (posts removed blah blah) Well, there you go then, what you interpret is what counts, not what was written. I said a large number never hurt anyone. That's a fact. You choose to try to take a different angle...well you can, but be prepared to be wrong on it. You did twist, you changed "a large number of rockets" to simply "rockets" so that you could say I was incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) It is not brushed aside, except in your repeated attempts to claim it is. Saying that the counting total casualty figures, or comparison of total casualty figures is not exactly the way things are conducted as far as the ICC goes is not discounting it, but just the way things are. Posters often waive "international law" when it suits them, and as far as I am aware, there is no casualty figures meter applied to such proceedings. On the other hand, it is a shame (literally as well) that some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility by Hamas for the very same casualties (to be clear, the Palestinian ones), but rather use it as a one sided propaganda tool. "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. Well, that's your own interpretation. Repeating it out of context (which was thoroughly explained) is a choice. Accusation of brushing things aside, while refusing to address Hamas responsibility (by no means absolute) for the casualties is an interesting position. The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. Read again or stop with the word-twisting...I never claimed that rockets never harmed a soul. I said a large number never harmed a soul. I didn't do the maths, but something over 99% never harmed a soul. Surely it's not the number of casualties but the intent of firing that number of rockets. Maybe you could name a country that would allow another country or group of People to fire rockets into their territory and not do something to stop those rockets from being fired. Then tell what would you think of a country that allowed indiscriminate firing of rockets into their territory and not react? Just think, if Hamas had stopped firing rockets at Israel, there would not have been 2000 dead terrorists! Edited January 20, 2015 by ggold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Doesn't look significant if the death toll was used instead, though, does it? Maybe not to you, but when you throw in thousands of rockets, all the mortar rounds, injuries, property damage, disruption to daily life and so forth, it is a lot more than any country on earth would put up with without striking back in a very big way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I did not overlook any facts. If, as implied, Hamas does not have construction materials - how does it manage to construct underground facilities for its own members, attack tunnels leading into Israel and produce more rockets? 555 jeez.... even if the post your replying to had the answer to this question you now ask bolded & underlined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 You did twist, you changed "a large number of rockets" to simply "rockets" so that you could say I was incorrect. You are the one "twisting". A large number of rockets in any war do not injure anyone. What is important is the ones that DO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh come now........your rudeness sweetened by the good cop persona you like to play is not hidden from anyone so please dont.......even play that role When you want to you put your little snipes in for many such as myself,Seastallion, Dexterm,joepublic,7x7 etc. etc. etc You just try & dress them in a smile...Yet the intent is clear...rudeness As is this merry go round you now ride defining context....Posts are for all to read & define None need your definition be the sole definition It is clear to me what Seastallion was saying & as if you did not know here it is anyway... The force of retaliation is off the charts disproportionately...If you claim to not know that or not realize that is what Seastallion is saying....well you may be the only one in the world But of course that is not the case is it? Yes of course Hamas shares responsibility none have ever claimed otherwise. Yet many can also see a futile acting out in frustration of decades of being encamped like prisoners while watching their homes dozed & lands stolen. It cannot be any more blatant that what it is & has been FOR DECADES This is 2015.........NO COUNTRY...other than this untouchable karma riddled mess would attempt such a feat ...yet Israel does as the world shakes its head. You may carry on with your JDL good cop routine & try to act like there is a difference & you are not rude/quipy when it suits your need but please don't think all are blind. Lastly....you said..."Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants." Classic !!!! But I thought we save that for the JDL bad cops to claim?? As it is so blatantly trying to side step the sheer number ....2000 DEAD...... in ONE Attack...........ONE ATTACK What was the rocket toll/Dead Israeli's for 10 years? Oh yeah 28 dead Carry on Morch yes....but where this exchange originated was Morch's comment ("It's the thought that counts") in reply to a question about why rocket numbers from Hamas and not Israeli casualty figures are quoted, when in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important. Ironic that one of Israel's mainstays of it's pack of victim cards is the Jewish death toll from Europe in the early to mid 1940's, but when it comes to the current conflict where Israeli deaths are comparatively insignificant, it's the number of ineffectual rockets that's important. And you forgot...according to Morch, we should subtract the number of Israeli soldiers from the total death toll, as they don't count. ("A number of the Palestinian deaths were militants" (or words to that effect)) The statement that "in all other conflicts, casualty figures are what are important" is not something which I subscribe to, nor was it demonstrated as true. Cause and manner of conducting warfare are often cited as being key, for example, although there are probably many ways to consider things. I do not normally bring up the Holocaust in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not as justification nor as anything else. Barking up the wrong tree. It can be pointed out though, that the Jews in Europe were, for the most part, citizens of the relevant countries and that they were not engaged in either armed struggle against these nations. The comparisons made in support of either side's claims are usually crude, if that. Did not suggest subtracting any numbers from any casualty lists. Soldiers are legitimate targets almost by definition. Same goes for armed militants and terrorists. I merely pointed out that not all the Palestinian casualties were civilians as often implied by lumping them together (something which, interestingly enough, is not usually applied by media sources to Israeli casualties). You have missed the point of me mentioning the Holocaust. Horrible figures: Europe; Over 6 million Jews killed, Rwanda; Nearly 1 million killed; Cambodia: Around 1.5 million killed, Iraq: 500 000 killed Afghanistan; 20 000 killed. Gaza (last 10 years) 5000 killed. Israel: 10 000 rockets fired at them. Doesn't look significant if the death toll was used instead, though, does it? *posts removed to allow reply* Was there a claim made that Israeli casualties are anywhere near the ones suffered by the Palestinians? I certainly did not make this claim. That posters sometimes express hysterical hyperbole view connecting the fate of European Jews in the Holocaust and the aims of Hamas is not something I am responsible for, nor see as constructive or meaningful. That there are certain Israeli politicians harping on these notions - fair enough, although how this makes it to be a general view is not too clear. I truly don't get what this is about - almost as if Israel is expected to ignore attacks, stiff upper lip, chin up and carry on sort of thing. Or, put another way, suffer more casualties. Now, I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, exactly - so do enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I did not overlook any facts. If, as implied, Hamas does not have construction materials - how does it manage to construct underground facilities for its own members, attack tunnels leading into Israel and produce more rockets? even if the post your replying to had the answer to this question you now ask bolded & underlined? That was in 2007. The restrictions were eased in 2010 and judging by the sheer number and scope of the offensive underground tunnels to Israel, Hamas diverted construction materials for military use - big surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I did not overlook any facts. If, as implied, Hamas does not have construction materials - how does it manage to construct underground facilities for its own members, attack tunnels leading into Israel and produce more rockets? 555 jeez.... even if the post your replying to had the answer to this question you now ask bolded & underlined? So they smuggle construction materials in and use it for anything but defending the civilian population. Surely there was a point to this comment? "Since Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, Israel has generally barred imports of steel rebar, gravel, and cement, which it considers “dual-use goods” that can be diverted for military uses. Palestinian armed groups did use building materials smuggled from Egypt to build military tunnels into Israel, but Israel’s security concerns could be met by a monitoring regime rather than a blanket prohibition on imports, Human Rights Watch said." There is a certain disconnect between stating that materials are smuggled in and the assertion that Israel's security concerns could be met by monitoring rather than by blanket prohibition on imports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That was in 2007. The restrictions were eased in 2010 and judging by the sheer number and scope of the offensive underground tunnels to Israel, Hamas diverted construction materials for military use - big surprise. Well none is allowed unless approved for projects that are overseen. Take it up with the rule maker & the rule enforcers...if true at all. But this is all just a side show the basic fact is in 2015 no race/group of humans should be blockaded while living in their own country. Especially when the one doing the blocking gets a large portion of their income from handouts given to an old tune about once having suffered such misery...yet now play a similar role in creating such misery for another group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now