Discussion
Guam said:
s1962a said:
Here is a journalists eye witness account of the same incident. No doubt there are plenty of others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/...
and another
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-22/bloody-sc...
It was broad daylight
Doesn't matter if it was daylight, how far off shore was the vessel, I take it we have all used the ferries, how many kids could you pick out on the beach from 2 miles out 4 miles out 8 miles out etc.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/...
and another
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-22/bloody-sc...
It was broad daylight
Journalists on the beach only see the impact of the round not what lead to its discharge and whether the beach was the actual target (or that area of it).
I know we are all used to news footage of micro millimeter accuracy from airborne weaponry, however not all weaponry is either so precise or or as reliable.
Given what you have said about the inaccurate naval weapons. Why use them then if there is so much doubt that they can't recognise children playing football from militants holding guns or firing rockets?
https://twitter.com/petersbeaumont/status/48941972...
Allnighter you are entitled to your views as am I. we clearly disagree but such is life.
What I objected to in your post is that it contain not just opinion but alleged facts to support your opinion.
I then asked for references and you either did not provide them or linked to articles (all of which clearly had an anti Israel view point) which might quote the "fact" but gave no link to the original quotes.
I have nothing to prove I have not quoted any facts.
For those interested these are the facts used in the post.
What I objected to in your post is that it contain not just opinion but alleged facts to support your opinion.
I then asked for references and you either did not provide them or linked to articles (all of which clearly had an anti Israel view point) which might quote the "fact" but gave no link to the original quotes.
I have nothing to prove I have not quoted any facts.
For those interested these are the facts used in the post.
allnighter said:
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
allnighter said:
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
allnighter said:
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
allnighter said:
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger
allnighter said:
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.” Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972
allnighter said:
hief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
allnighter said:
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 23 July 13:18
Apparently 43% of Gaza is unsafe for residents. Where in gaza can they go?
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-gaza...
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-gaza...
allnighter said:
Mrr T, I have read a lot of literature on the subject, some of it good and some not so good. I try to see both sides' point of view and reach a balanced and informed conclusion. There is some crap I have read over the years coming from pro-zionists, and some other s
t I read coming from Islamists full of self-induced glory.
My analysis of the Palestino-Israeli conflict is based on the chronology of events that took place. Now you can deny said events took place, but history cannot be rewritten. Both sides of the conflict acknowledge those events, and both give different interpretations to them.
My opinion on those events recorded by history is my opinion, and I am entitled to my opinion and I expressed it freely on here, and I am sure you have yours too.To deny or gloss over events which took place smacks of intellectual dishonesty.I will respect you more if you acknowledge that 'st happened' but this is your take on it.
except your chronology seems to miss important key facts out,ignores some blatant truths and you quote some peoples opinions as facts,or at least their twisting of facts.You are correct there is misinformation on both sides ,but to say only the the islamist stuff is is quite frankly a lie.NUmerous so called academics have been involved in perverting history ,there are certain key works the anti-israeli side rely upon,the likes of mcarthy with his demographic work and the revisionist historians like pappe,morris etc ,much of their opinion is spouted as fact ,when a lot of it has been proven false,or at best guesswork.t I read coming from Islamists full of self-induced glory.My analysis of the Palestino-Israeli conflict is based on the chronology of events that took place. Now you can deny said events took place, but history cannot be rewritten. Both sides of the conflict acknowledge those events, and both give different interpretations to them.
My opinion on those events recorded by history is my opinion, and I am entitled to my opinion and I expressed it freely on here, and I am sure you have yours too.To deny or gloss over events which took place smacks of intellectual dishonesty.I will respect you more if you acknowledge that 's
t happened' but this is your take on it. When you quoted some stuff previously I asked if it was pappes work as that was his line of argument,it seemed you either got it from him,or a source which used him as a source,you claimed it wasnt but you woudl look into pappe..well ? (apologies im not trawling through this thread )
you're very happy to examine israeli claims and the criticism of those claims ,yet allow clear palestinian lies to go unchallenged.
if you are so fair minded do you think it reasonable that israel is investigated for war crimes but hamas not ? Last time I looked launching rockets deliberately at civilian centres of population and using civilians as shields was most definitely classed as a war crime .
and you must bear in mind,every time we have this crap israel gets investigated for war crimes,and then once the evidence is examined they are more often than not exonerated .
to prove deliberate targetting of civilians they would have to show there was an unusually high number of civilian casualties,whcih will be difficult as the rate is low (I do hate making deaths a statistic,but needs must)
Since the un investigation cannot be done until after the conflict is done ,i can refer you to the previous conflict and the UN findings (bearing in mind the UN is considered an anti israeli organization ,a topic which is a seperate issue but I would be happy to explain why )
'Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, spoke in 2011 about Israeli operations in the Gaza War. He said that a study published by the United Nations showed "that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare." He stated that this ratio was less than 1:1, and compared it favorably to the estimated ratios in NATO operations in Afghanistan (3:1), western campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo (believed to be 4:1), and the conflicts in Chechnya and Serbia (much higher than 4:1, according to anecdotal evidence). Kemp argued that the low ratio was achieved through unprecedented measures by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties, which included providing warnings to the population via telephone calls, radio broadcasts and leaflets, as well as granting pilots the discretion to abort a strike if they perceived too great a risk of civilian casualties. He also stated that the civilian casualties that did occur could be seen in light of Hamas' tactical use of Gazan civilians "as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters" and strategic use of them for exploitation of their deaths in the media.[51]
The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed.
That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three to one. In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia.
In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.”[52]'
SR7492 said:
Mr Snap said:
If it was the UK Navy, the Rules of Engagement would have meant any gunning was delayed until better evidence was available.
This is the IDF we are talking about: shoot first, ask questions later! Trigger happy loonies!IDF are much better and not being trigger happy than most, compared to US forces, they are positively saints in not hitting the wrong target.
Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, s
t will happen.no, it's not good, and yes, people die, however, at some point you have to recognize the reality of these situations.
Ultimately, they need a solution, however, between Hamas and Israel I can;t see that happening any time soon..
Scuffers said:
.
Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, st will happen.
So don't start the military operation in the fashion we have seen.Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, s
t will happen.Or even better still, don't push Palestinians into a little corner in the first place and expect them to settle for it.
Scuffers said:
you are joking?
IDF are much better and not being trigger happy than most, compared to US forces, they are positively saints in not hitting the wrong target.
Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, st will happen.
no, it's not good, and yes, people die, however, at some point you have to recognize the reality of these situations.
IndeedIDF are much better and not being trigger happy than most, compared to US forces, they are positively saints in not hitting the wrong target.
Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, s
t will happen.no, it's not good, and yes, people die, however, at some point you have to recognize the reality of these situations.
and what I find most interesting is that civilian casualties only seem to matter when it suits the posters political agenda.
Where were the long threads criticising the Sri Lankan government when it crushed the Tigers, killing approx 40,000 civilians in the process?, or criticising the Sudanese government for Darfur?
JagLover said:
Indeed
and what I find most interesting is that civilian casualties only seem to matter when it suits the posters political agenda.
Where were the long threads criticising the Sri Lankan government when it crushed the Tigers, killing approx 40,000 civilians in the process?, or criticising the Sudanese government for Darfur?
Another one trying to shift focus and blame.and what I find most interesting is that civilian casualties only seem to matter when it suits the posters political agenda.
Where were the long threads criticising the Sri Lankan government when it crushed the Tigers, killing approx 40,000 civilians in the process?, or criticising the Sudanese government for Darfur?
s1962a said:
Apparently 43% of Gaza is unsafe for residents. Where in gaza can they go?
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-gaza...
The other 57%?http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-gaza...
Scuffers said:
you are joking?
IDF are much better and not being trigger happy than most, compared to US forces, they are positively saints in not hitting the wrong target.
Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, st will happen.
no, it's not good, and yes, people die, however, at some point you have to recognize the reality of these situations.
Ultimately, they need a solution, however, between Hamas and Israel I can;t see that happening any time soon..
Israel refuses to have peace talks with Hamas. The Egyptian peace initiative didn't consult Hamas, it only consulted El Fatah. IDF are much better and not being trigger happy than most, compared to US forces, they are positively saints in not hitting the wrong target.
Look, ugly and horrible as it is, soon as you start a military operation in what is a small, densely populated area, s
t will happen.no, it's not good, and yes, people die, however, at some point you have to recognize the reality of these situations.
Ultimately, they need a solution, however, between Hamas and Israel I can;t see that happening any time soon..
It was only when John Major entered secret talks with the IRA was there any move towards peace in NI. Hamas has stated it's willingness to talk but Israel refuses to talk with terrorists. If Israel refuses to talk with the main protagonists, they too will never obtain peace - and thus war becomes self-perpetuating. It's as much Israel's fault as Hamas's.
franki68 said:
its not shifting blame,it is a pertinent and valid question,which gets answered with claims that it is a tactic used for distraction.You make a distraction from it because you fear the answer.
Questions of the Sri-Lankan crisis are for the Sri-Lankan thread.It is shifting the blame because in a way it is suggesting we shouldn't be worried about this and is implying that those that do care did not care about the oher conflicts in the world.
That is because Jaglover et al are afraid of the truth.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 July 13:43
Scuffers said:
no, just somebody trying to put some perspective to this.
for example, do we have any figures for how many people die in Gaza NOT down to IDF action?
not a direct answer but some stats which show why israel does not target civilians.for example, do we have any figures for how many people die in Gaza NOT down to IDF action?
from before the ground invasion
'
How does that compare to other conflicts? Wars differ in nature (ground vs. air, for example), pace, and duration. So let’s look at air wars and compare the civilian death rates per strike. So far in Gaza, Israel has hit approximately 1,100 sites. Using the high-end casualty count, that’s an average of one civilian death for every 14 to 15 sites struck. In the 1999 Kosovo air war, Human Rights Watch found that NATO had killed approximately 500 civilians in attacks on more than 900 targets. That’s more than one death for every two targets hit. '
Edited by franki68 on Wednesday 23 July 13:45
franki68 said:
I think you understand the point he was making.
It was a straw-man point.An insinuation.
A diversion.
He knows nothing of how much any of us care about other situations yet he insinuates we give this special treatment and insinuates some kind of malign motives for this.
Akin to the 'bigot' and 'anti-semitic' namecalling trick that is often used to hide behind and deflect attention.
Stick to the subject of the thread.
Mr Snap said:
Israel refuses to have peace talks with Hamas. The Egyptian peace initiative didn't consult Hamas, it only consulted El Fatah.
I believe Israel will not talk to Hamas because Hamas will not accept "Israel right to exist". Whereas I believe El Fatah have.Mr Snap said:
It was only when John Major entered secret talks with the IRA was there any move towards peace in NI. Hamas has stated it's willingness to talk but Israel refuses to talk with terrorists. If Israel refuses to talk with the main protagonists, they too will never obtain peace - and thus war becomes self-perpetuating. It's as much Israel's fault as Hamas's.
Again I believe you are wrong. I do not believe John Major would have met terrorists with a blank sheet of paper. There have long been rumours before the "Downing Street Declaration" in 1994 that back ground talks had taken place between officials and terrorists.
This seems logical since; why make the declaration if it had not been tastily agreed by all sides as forming a basis for peace.
Tin foil helmet off.
Back to Israel.
If Hamas declared an unconditional cease fire, agreed to Israel's right to exist, and renounced violence.
Then we might truly be on the road to peace.
Further the moral authority of the rest of the world on Israel would leave it no option but to start negoations.
Sadly pigs do not fly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff