BF2S Forums Barack Obama Elects Son Of Terrorist

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Since, in the case of Israel both the actual and claimed intent are the same...

Very funny, we know thats not true.

No, we don't. You THINK it's true...but then again, you think a lot of things that have no basis in fact.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

and I guess in the case of Hamas, the actual and claimed intent are the same...then yes.

No they're just less dishonest.

No, they're just terrorists...and proud of it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't give a toss about intent really, body count is what matters.

Sounds very "US-policy in Vietnam"-ish. And very much like Hamas, to boot.

To not "give a toss about intent" is to turn a blind eye to reality.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But back on topic.
Rahm Emmanuel's father was a terrorist - no question about it, and he personally served in an organisation some put on a par with the SS and at best has a long history of being very careless with civilian lives and human rights.
Does it not matter at all?

"On par with the SS"? Are you smoking something? The "some" you refer to is a small proportion of the world's population that think the way you do, Dilbert. Don't for a second think that your line of thinking is at all mainstream, particularly as regards the IDF.

People could take a knee-jerk reaction and say the same thing about any military of any country in the world, and they wouldn't be any more right than you are.

So no. It does not matter at all. If he had been doing something other than cleaning brakes, you might have something to argue against. But he didn't...so you don't.

FEOS wrote:

No, we don't. You THINK it's true...but then again, you think a lot of things that have no basis in fact.

We can go through it all again if you like, IDF targetting refugees in Sabra and Shatila, IDF targetting civilians in Lebanon, IDF snipers targetting children, journalists, peace activists.  Up to you.
And Hamas haven't said they specifically target civilians, they've said civilians are fair game.
The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah have a much better ratio of military/civilian hits than the IDF pretty much proves they don't target civilians particularly.
The IDF do target civilians, and don't give a toss if civilians happen to be in the firing line either.
Its not really much of a difference TBH.

FEOS wrote:

No, they're just terrorists...and proud of it.

No they are the democratically elected representatives of their nation who are trying to regain it from those who stole it through terrorism.

FEOS wrote:

To not "give a toss about intent" is to turn a blind eye to reality.

Reality is the number of dead civilians, 'intent' is irrelevant.

Its very easy to claim an intent and then proceed to do the exact opposite.
Only fools believe liars.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-10 03:33:53)

FEOS wrote:

Yes, we could go through it all day...and you would be just as wrong as you were before.

Nope.

FEOS wrote:

You take isolated incidents of individuals and try to extrapolate a non-existent doctrine.

Thats how evidence works, you remember that whole 'WMD intel' thing? Extrapolating a pile of nothing into a multi-trillion dollar war?
I am right however.

FEOS wrote:

Yes. Democratically elected representatives who advocate targeting of civilians.

As does the Israeli govt. Israel exists through targeting civilians and it remains their policy.

FEOS wrote:

Reality is who the IDF would avoid killing if they could. Reality is who Hamas fully intends to kill.

What gives the lie to this is the ratios military/civilian each side demonstrates.
Hamas are a militia, they are the population.
The IDF could choose not to carry out operations with an excess risk of civilian casualties. The figures show they care not for civilians.

The IDF has a long history of targeting civilians, right from the inception of Israel - you can't avoid it.

Anyway, this is all getting off topic.

Please explain how Rahm Emmanuel having a terrorist father and being a member of a dubious outfit like the IDF is not an issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, we could go through it all day...and you would be just as wrong as you were before.

Nope.

Yep

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You take isolated incidents of individuals and try to extrapolate a non-existent doctrine.

Thats how evidence works, you remember that whole 'WMD intel' thing? Extrapolating a pile of nothing into a multi-trillion dollar war?
I am right however.

Nope.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes. Democratically elected representatives who advocate targeting of civilians.

As does the Israeli govt. Israel exists through targeting civilians and it remains their policy.

Never has been, and you can't prove otherwise.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Reality is who the IDF would avoid killing if they could. Reality is who Hamas fully intends to kill.

What gives the lie to this is the ratios military/civilian each side demonstrates.
Hamas are a militia, they are the population.
The IDF could choose not to carry out operations with an excess risk of civilian casualties. The figures show they care not for civilians.

The IDF has a long history of targeting civilians, right from the inception of Israel - you can't avoid it.

Anyway, this is all getting off topic.

And Hamas could choose not to target Israeli civilians who aren't even in the proximity of the IDF, but they don't. That's the key difference you ignore: The "body count" is higher on the Hamas side because Hamas purposely keeps its militia and its civilians together. The IDF consists of the Israeli population, as well...but they follow things like "international law" by keeping their military and their civilians apart so as not to cause undue risk to their civilian population.

There is ZERO history of systemic, intentional, targeting of civilians by the IDF. Simply because civilians are killed does not mean they were targeted...that is why intent is important. Yet you choose to ignore those simple facts because they don't support your rabid anti-Israeli position.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Please explain how Rahm Emmanuel having a terrorist father and being a member of a dubious outfit like the IDF is not an issue.

I've already done that, but I'll repeat:

1. It's his father, not him.
2. There's nothing "dubious" about the IDF...unless you have blind hate for all things Israeli.

Is that succinct enough for you, or do I have to explain it again?

usmarine wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Thanks to Israel

Thanks to the Ottoman Empire

lulz...sup owned again.

Well, thanks to both actually. Israel are the obvious 'bad guys' when it comes to Palestine's emasculation and they rightfully deserve the lion's share of the blame but the surrounding Arab nations of the region have always been content to sell the Palestinians up the river to further their own interests. Many of them get good mileage out of 'the great enemy' Israel.

PS: Israel are still a bunch of cunts though!

Dilbert_X wrote:

Intent, deliberate targeting, reckless disregard  for civilian casualties, the result is the same - dead civilians, women, children, old men.
Again, Hamas is a militia, its hard to maintain a standing army when you've been thrown out of your own country.

FEOS wrote:

Never has been, and you can't prove otherwise.

Suggest you look up Sabra and Shatila, for starters.


Maybe listen to Menachem Begin
'The education which we gave our soldiers throughout the years of revolt was based on the observance of the traditional laws of war. We never broke them unless the enemy first did so and thus forced us, in accordance with the accepted custom of war, to apply reprisals.'

So according to the Israelis it was tit for tat at best, both sides broke the rules of war.
If you listen to anyone else it was the Israelis first.

And since when were 'reprisals' a normal part of war? Thats the sort of thing the Nazis did.

Targeting civilians has been Israeli doctrine since day one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma … sraeli_war

FEOS wrote:

1. It's his father, not him.

So you'd have no issue with one of the Bin Laden boys serving in your govt?

Hamas is a recognised terrorist organisation, and as for this part

Dilbert_X wrote:

Targeting civilians has been Israeli doctrine since day one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma … sraeli_war

That constitues a /facehouse

FEOS wrote:

The "some" you refer to is a small proportion of the world's population that think the way you do, Dilbert. Don't for a second think that your line of thinking is at all mainstream, particularly as regards the IDF.

Maybe true in the US thanks to your "mainstream" media but completly false in the rest of the world.  Israel is one of the most hated country on earth after the US.. Even arab countries are more respected than Israel.

And even if it was true, do you really have to listen to the "majority" to take a side?

Dilbert_X wrote:

His father Benjamin told an Israeli newspaper: "Of course he will influence the president to be pro-Israeli."

So...his father, who you say is a terrorist (I don't necessarily disagree) says something, and it's gospel? Do you even think about these things before you hit SUBMIT?

Nevermind. I already know the answer.

Moving on...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Intent, deliberate targeting, reckless disregard  for civilian casualties, the result is the same - dead civilians, women, children, old men.

Reckless disregard for civilian casualties? Since when? Once again, you claim to see into the mind of the Israeli leadership. How about you go with facts instead of your unfounded conjecture once in a while?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Again, Hamas is a militia, its hard to maintain a standing army when you've been thrown out of your own country.

Again, they are Hamas' recognized military arm. Hamas is the elected government of Gaza, thus the militia is the recognized military arm of Gaza. It's not hard at all to separate your military from your civilians...Hamas just chooses not to do so. It's not hard at all to NOT fire on Israeli civilians from Palestinian civilian areas...Hamas just chooses not to do that, either. In both cases, they know full well any response will result in Palestinian civilian casualties...but they do it anyway.

Israel is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. They can either not respond to the killing/wounding of their citizens by Hamas' purposeful targeting, or they can respond and then be lambasted for killing/wounding Palestinian civilians along with militants. So, let's see...your citizens have done nothing and get shot at. Hamas intentionally targets civilians from Pal civilian areas, knowing they are 1) trying to kill Israeli civilians and 2) putting Pal civilian lives at risk in order to win the PA campaign. True, those Pal civilians have done nothing, either...but it's not the civilians Israel is targeting, it is the militants.

Blame the militants, don't blame Israel.

BTW, don't know if you've noticed, but Israel hasn't exactly been hitting the Palestinians lately. Why do you think that is? It surely couldn't be because Hamas isn't shooting at them, now could it? I mean, if they are so full of blood-lust, the IDF should have been making incursions right and left into Gaza to eradicate the Palestinians from the face of the earth...but that isn't happening, is it?

Let's do the math real quick: Hamas doesn't shoot at Israel, Israel doesn't shoot at Hamas. Hamas shoots at Israel, Israel shoots back. Clearly, Israel is the instigator here, aren't they?

Wiki wrote:

The neutrality of this article is disputed

Suggest you look for facts that don't come from disputed sources. Suggest you research things that don't necessarily agree with your world view. Suggest you try objectivity for once.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you'd have no issue with one of the Bin Laden boys serving in your govt?

Depends completely on that individual's record and character.

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Maybe true in the US thanks to your "mainstream" media but completly false in the rest of the world.  Israel is one of the most hated country on earth after the US.. Even arab countries are more respected than Israel.

Why does that viewpoint not surprise me coming from you?

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

And even if it was true, do you really have to listen to the "majority" to take a side?

I was talking about the comparison to the SS. Reading comprehension and context ftw.

FEOS wrote:

Why does that viewpoint not surprise me coming from you?

Its a fairly mainstream view outside the US, most people rate Israel level with Iran and many rate them on a par with Nazi Germany.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I believe the point has already been made.

And just for the record: intent is the key when it comes to targeting.

Actual intent or claimed intent?

Since, in the case of Israel both the actual and claimed intent are the same...and I guess in the case of Hamas, the actual and claimed intent are the same...then yes.

So you are claiming to be able to read minds now? Nobody except those with the intents can know their intents.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why does that viewpoint not surprise me coming from you?

Its a fairly mainstream view outside the US, most people rate Israel level with Iran and many rate them on a par with Nazi Germany.

Why does that viewpoint not surprise me coming from you?

Funny that one doesn't see that "mainstream view" reflected anywhere but here (from a few of you) and a handful of whacked-out websites that the few of you here frequent.

Where else have you been looking?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7324337.stm
More people see Iran and N. Korea positively than Israel. It really is the mainstream view outside of North America and Israel.

Or is the BBC a 'whacked-out' website?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1022127,00.html

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Actual intent or claimed intent?

Since, in the case of Israel both the actual and claimed intent are the same...and I guess in the case of Hamas, the actual and claimed intent are the same...then yes.

So you are claiming to be able to read minds now? Nobody except those with the intents can know their intents.

You know their intent by what the write in their doctrine and in their public statements, do you not? That's whay I'm going on.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its a fairly mainstream view outside the US, most people rate Israel level with Iran and many rate them on a par with Nazi Germany.

Why does that viewpoint not surprise me coming from you?

Funny that one doesn't see that "mainstream view" reflected anywhere but here (from a few of you) and a handful of whacked-out websites that the few of you here frequent.

Where else have you been looking?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7324337.stm
More people see Iran and N. Korea positively than Israel. It really is the mainstream view outside of North America and Israel.

Or is the BBC a 'whacked-out' website?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1022127,00.html

They certainly aren't even-handed when it comes to reporting on the Israel-Palestine situation. That's documented quite thoroughly at wwww.justjournalism.com