Pages: 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 … 64

 

2009-01-12 19:51:15
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

I guess it would be better to just go where the IDF say it is safe.

Oh, wait.
UN calls for war crimes probe into IDF shelling of civilian-occupied building in Gaza

With fighting all around them, Israel Defense Forces troops knocked on the door of the Samouni clan in Gaza City last weekend and told them to leave, directing them to the building owned by a relative. Twenty-four hours later, three shells slammed into the structure where dozens of people were huddling, according to survivor accounts Friday.

A newly released United Nations report said 30 people died in the shelling, citing four unidentified survivors who spoke by telephone. It called the shelling "one of the gravest incidents" to happen since Israeli infantry and armored troops entered Gaza Jan. 4 to quell Hamas rockets on Israel.

Other accounts given to The Associated Press and an Israeli human rights group provided lower casualty figures, but all agreed that shells hit the large, unfinished warehouse-like building a day after Israeli troops told them to get inside it for their safety.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054217.html
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 19:53:14
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6777|Long Island, New York
Yes, that was a mistake. Israel admitted it AFAIK. Mistakes happen in war, especially when...once again...Hamas hides among the public.

How many more times are you anti-Israel people going to jack off to that article anyways? I've seen it posted here numerous times. It doesn't change anything.

bogo24dk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:


When US started to invade iraq diden't they face a army ? Or you want to play the stupid card with anwsers like this.
I'm talking about now, dingbat. You think there's no war going on just because it's not two armies having a gentlemen's battle like in the 1700's? That's laughable.

You don't need two armies to fight a war. You just need two opposing forces.
Yes i see it clearly. IDF vs civilians, cause it sure aint hamas with so many civilians dead.
You're hopeless.

Last edited by Poseidon (2009-01-12 19:53:33)

2009-01-12 19:54:17
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6726|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

bogo24dk wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:


Take a look here : http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev6ojm62q … ?id=118703
OK, your city is being attacked, WTF are your children doing playing on the fucking roof?
So the idf is using the latest US army tech where they clearly see what's going on. And you justify this with what the kids are doing on the roof.
No you fucking retard. Their city is under attack, air strikes, shelling, etc. Why would they be letting Palestinian kids play on the roof?

I don't trust any report coming from ether side, every time Israel looks at Gaza a group of kids die. I again raise the:
https://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h273/kheihn/114_bsflag.gif

And like I said before, if they were trying to massacre civilians, their would be a helluva lot more bodies.
2009-01-12 19:58:36
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

Poseidon wrote:

Yes, that was a mistake. Israel admitted it AFAIK. Mistakes happen in war, especially when...once again...Hamas hides among the public.

How many more times are you anti-Israel people going to jack off to that article anyways? I've seen it posted here numerous times. It doesn't change anything.
How long did it take them to admit shelling the school was a mistake?

First they said they didn't fire at the school. Then it was a stray tank shell. Then yes we did fire at it, militants were sheltered there. Then it became militants were in the area. Then it became we fired three mortars and one strayed off course and hit the school.

There's more spin in that then you'd find in a washing machine.

And I wouldn't be labelling everyone here anti-Israeli. If you can find a single anti-Israeli comment I've ever made, I'll stop posting in D&St for good. I've been defending the innocent civilians, never Hamas.

edit: read your post as anti-Israeli, not anti-Israel. Sorry.

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2009-01-12 20:04:13)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 20:03:53
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6726|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Yes, that was a mistake. Israel admitted it AFAIK. Mistakes happen in war, especially when...once again...Hamas hides among the public.

How many more times are you anti-Israel people going to jack off to that article anyways? I've seen it posted here numerous times. It doesn't change anything.
How long did it take them to admit shelling the school was a mistake?

First they said they didn't fire at the school. Then it was a stray tank shell. Then yes we did fire at it, militants were sheltered there. Then it became militants were in the area. Then it became we fired three mortars and one strayed off course and hit the school.

There's more spin in that then you'd find in a washing machine.

And I wouldn't be labelling everyone here anti-Israeli. If you can find a single anti-Israeli comment I've ever made, I'll stop posting in D&St for good. I've been defending the innocent civilians, never Hamas.
Thats the horrible thing, fog of war. The whole this started like a telephone, started off as a group of civilians in the school, they some retard officer gets reports mixed up and calls for fire on the school thinking he is hitting a enemy position.

I totally agree with you about this is fucked for the civilians caught in the middle. But what I am trying to convey, is that some people here think Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, if they were, their would be bodies stacked like cord wood on the streets.
2009-01-12 20:10:12
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

SgtHeihn wrote:

Thats the horrible thing, fog of war. The whole this started like a telephone, started off as a group of civilians in the school, they some retard officer gets reports mixed up and calls for fire on the school thinking he is hitting a enemy position.

I totally agree with you about this is fucked for the civilians caught in the middle. But what I am trying to convey, is that some people here think Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, if they were, their would be bodies stacked like cord wood on the streets.
Yeah I agree with you, that Israel are not intentionally targeting civilians. However, the IDF are deliberately using over aggressive tactics which are causing more civilian casualties than you would expect and hope for. They have intentionally become lax in protecting the civilian population of Gaza because doing so can result in increased risk to their own soldiers.

They don't want another Lebanon, where the heavy casualties they suffered strengthened the cause of Hamas. They have done so at the cost of civilian lives.

Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives

Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives. And the cabinet took this into account when it approved the ground operation last Friday, so it has no reason to change its mind now.

Nor is it likely that Tuesday's incident, with its large number of civilian deaths, will result in an immediate cease-fire. Civilian deaths increase international pressure for a cease-fire and so the incident will probably bring the end of the war closer. Nevertheless, the Second Lebanon War continued for weeks following a similar incident at Kana.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053401.html

^this is from an Israeli news website.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 20:14:59
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6726|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
I hate to say it but I do see the military view point of this. In the Marines we had 2 goals, 1) Mission Accomplishment 2) Troop welfare.

Gaza's civilians are the ones getting butt fucked by both sides. Hamas doesn't give a damn about them and the Israelis are looking to save troops.
2009-01-12 20:19:20
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6726|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
From BBC:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Palestinian militants will keep on feeling Israel's "iron fist" as long as Hamas fires rockets at Israel.

But a senior Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, said the group was "approaching victory".

"After 17 days of this foolish war, Gaza has not been broken and Gaza will not collapse," he said in a televised address from a secret location in Gaza.
   
Since the majority of the Hamas militants are pretty much in hiding in those places, mainly urban places, then we operate in those areas
Maj Avital Leibovich
Israeli military spokeswoman

Both Hamas and Israel rejected last week's UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.
If hamas really cared they would stop shooting rockets and be trying to end their populaces grief.
2009-01-12 21:11:39
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

1:1?

How many Israeli's have died in this combat? And I don't mean the soliders killed by friendly fire. How many Hamas?

Cause 800 civilians aren't 1:1 with either Hamas or the IDF.
Israel puts the amount of Hamas fighters killed at around 400-615. The MoH in Palestine puts the amount of civilians killed at around 513. So yes, it's around 1:1.
According to the Report issued on Thursday by the U.N.'s Humanitarian Affairs Office, more than 1/3 of overall Palestinian deaths are children (34% of the almost 800 total deaths), and a similar percentage of the more than 3,000 wounded are also children (34.8%).

Source: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_o … nglish.pdf
And what is the percentage of children in the overall population of Palestine? Do they include individuals under 18 who are actively supporting Hamas and thus killed/wounded in strikes on Hamas targets?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-01-12 21:15:09
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

FEOS wrote:

And what is the percentage of children in the overall population of Palestine? Do they include individuals under 18 who are actively supporting Hamas and thus killed/wounded in strikes on Hamas targets?
Oh I'm sorry. I'm wrong and so is the UN. All these children casualties must have drawn arms against the Israeli invasion forces and were legitimate targets.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 21:32:00
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And what is the percentage of children in the overall population of Palestine? Do they include individuals under 18 who are actively supporting Hamas and thus killed/wounded in strikes on Hamas targets?
Oh I'm sorry. I'm wrong and so is the UN. All these children casualties must have drawn arms against the Israeli invasion forces and were legitimate targets.
And you've completely missed the point.

The population of children (as a percentage of overall population) in Gaza is quite high. If you think the only Gazans who are taking up arms against Israel are over 18, you're smoking a special kind of crack. Hamas recruits teenagers (under age 18). It's not uncommon in that part of the world at all.

The focus was on the percentage of the Gazan population that is 1) under 18 and 2) actively supporting Hamas. They are not necessarily the same group (2 being a subset of 1). Regardless, the stat provided is only out of the norm if the population of children under 18 is significantly lower than the percentage provided. Otherwise, it is representative of the population as a whole...possibly skewed by the chance that some of those under 18 may have been actively supporting Hamas (an unknown).

Chill out, Francis.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-01-12 21:42:10
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

FEOS wrote:

And you've completely missed the point.

The population of children (as a percentage of overall population) in Gaza is quite high. If you think the only Gazans who are taking up arms against Israel are over 18, you're smoking a special kind of crack. Hamas recruits teenagers (under age 18). It's not uncommon in that part of the world at all.

The focus was on the percentage of the Gazan population that is 1) under 18 and 2) actively supporting Hamas. They are not necessarily the same group (2 being a subset of 1). Regardless, the stat provided is only out of the norm if the population of children under 18 is significantly lower than the percentage provided. Otherwise, it is representative of the population as a whole...possibly skewed by the chance that some of those under 18 may have been actively supporting Hamas (an unknown).

Chill out, Francis.
I think you've missed the point. The IDF aren't targeting the population of Gaza, only the Hamas militants. Comparing the number of children killed to that of the population of Gaza is flawed because the IDF are not targeting the entire population. Unless, that's what you think they are doing?

And secondly what arms exactly are they actively supporting Hamas with? There isn't exactly a tank or armoured vehicle they can ride in. I really do doubt that the 300 or so children casualties were legitimate threats, let alone killed in the field of battle.

Oh and the correct quote is "Lighten up, Francis." Get it right. It's embarrassing otherwise.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 21:54:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And you've completely missed the point.

The population of children (as a percentage of overall population) in Gaza is quite high. If you think the only Gazans who are taking up arms against Israel are over 18, you're smoking a special kind of crack. Hamas recruits teenagers (under age 18). It's not uncommon in that part of the world at all.

The focus was on the percentage of the Gazan population that is 1) under 18 and 2) actively supporting Hamas. They are not necessarily the same group (2 being a subset of 1). Regardless, the stat provided is only out of the norm if the population of children under 18 is significantly lower than the percentage provided. Otherwise, it is representative of the population as a whole...possibly skewed by the chance that some of those under 18 may have been actively supporting Hamas (an unknown).

Chill out, Francis.
I think you've missed the point. The IDF aren't targeting the population of Gaza, only the Hamas militants. Comparing the number of children killed to that of the population of Gaza is flawed because the IDF are not targeting the entire population. Unless, that's what you think they are doing?

And secondly what arms exactly are they actively supporting Hamas with? There isn't exactly a tank or armoured vehicle they can ride in. I really do doubt that the 300 or so children casualties were legitimate threats, let alone killed in the field of battle.

Oh and the correct quote is "Lighten up, Francis." Get it right. It's embarrassing otherwise.
I'm not saying IDF is targeting the population of Gaza--they are not. What I am saying is that, if you look at the numbers objectively, take into account Hamas' penchant for hiding within the civilian population, and the number (greater than zero) of minors actively supporting Hamas, those numbers are not surprising. Actively supporting Hamas doesn't require armored vehicles, and nobody is saying that all the children specifically (or civilians in general) were "threats". Hence the term "collateral damage".

Collateral Damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Webster's wrote:

Collateral Damage - unintentional harm to persons or property as the result of military action

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:

Collateral Damage - Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.
There's a common theme there. See if you can figure it out.

It is not an indictment of the IDF or their targeting. It is not even necessarily an indictment of Hamas' tactics...just a recognition of them and their impact on statistics. Statistics provided absent any broader context or meaning regarding the overall population.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-01-12 22:02:55
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

FEOS wrote:

OK. How about Calm The Fuck Down Dipshit?

Is that better?

Forgive me for not getting my 80's movie quotes spot on. It makes such a HUGE difference in the argument.

I'm not saying IDF is targeting the population of Gaza--they are not. What I am saying is that, if you look at the numbers objectively, take into account Hamas' penchant for hiding within the civilian population, and the number (greater than zero) of minors actively supporting Hamas, those numbers are not surprising. Actively supporting Hamas doesn't require armored vehicles, and nobody is saying that all the children specifically (or civilians in general) were "threats". Hence the term "collateral damage".

Collateral Damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Webster's wrote:

Collateral Damage - unintentional harm to persons or property as the result of military action

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:

Collateral Damage - Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.
There's a common theme there. See if you can figure it out.

It is not an indictment of the IDF or their targeting. It is not even necessarily an indictment of Hamas' tactics...just a recognition of them and their impact on statistics. Statistics provided absent any broader context or meaning regarding the overall population.
Childish name calling? I suggest take a minute to calm down before posting again if that's all you have to offer up in terms of debate.

And I can't see how branding civilian casualties as listed by the UN as collateral damage makes it any more right or concludes that the IDF tactics within Gaza have been sound.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 22:10:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

OK. How about Calm The Fuck Down Dipshit?

Is that better?

Forgive me for not getting my 80's movie quotes spot on. It makes such a HUGE difference in the argument.

I'm not saying IDF is targeting the population of Gaza--they are not. What I am saying is that, if you look at the numbers objectively, take into account Hamas' penchant for hiding within the civilian population, and the number (greater than zero) of minors actively supporting Hamas, those numbers are not surprising. Actively supporting Hamas doesn't require armored vehicles, and nobody is saying that all the children specifically (or civilians in general) were "threats". Hence the term "collateral damage".

Collateral Damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Webster's wrote:

Collateral Damage - unintentional harm to persons or property as the result of military action

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:

Collateral Damage - Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.
There's a common theme there. See if you can figure it out.

It is not an indictment of the IDF or their targeting. It is not even necessarily an indictment of Hamas' tactics...just a recognition of them and their impact on statistics. Statistics provided absent any broader context or meaning regarding the overall population.
Childish name calling? I suggest take a minute to calm down before posting again if that's all you have to offer up in terms of debate.
Go pedantic when it helps the argument, not just for the sake of being pedantic.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

And I can't see how branding civilian casualties as listed by the UN as collateral damage makes it any more right or concludes that the IDF tactics within Gaza have been sound.
It's less a question of the IDF tactics than Hamas' tactics. The IDF have repeatedly given up the tactical advantage of surprise in order to warn the populace (and thus Hamas, who embed themselves in civilian areas in violation of the GC) of impending strikes--how many times has Hamas warned Israelis that they are going to launch rockets into their neighborhood?

To even suggest that the IDF is targeting civilians (vice Hamas) is to ignore cold, hard facts. How would you recommend clearing Gaza of Hamas tunnels and rocket-associated infrastructure? Do you have an operational plan that will achieve that objective with zero civilian casualties, despite Hamas' strategy of placing civilians in harm's way for the propaganda value?

If you do, please share it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-01-12 22:21:35
imortal
Member
+240|6904|Austin, TX

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And you've completely missed the point.

The population of children (as a percentage of overall population) in Gaza is quite high. If you think the only Gazans who are taking up arms against Israel are over 18, you're smoking a special kind of crack. Hamas recruits teenagers (under age 18). It's not uncommon in that part of the world at all.

The focus was on the percentage of the Gazan population that is 1) under 18 and 2) actively supporting Hamas. They are not necessarily the same group (2 being a subset of 1). Regardless, the stat provided is only out of the norm if the population of children under 18 is significantly lower than the percentage provided. Otherwise, it is representative of the population as a whole...possibly skewed by the chance that some of those under 18 may have been actively supporting Hamas (an unknown).

Chill out, Francis.
I think you've missed the point. The IDF aren't targeting the population of Gaza, only the Hamas militants. Comparing the number of children killed to that of the population of Gaza is flawed because the IDF are not targeting the entire population. Unless, that's what you think they are doing?

And secondly what arms exactly are they actively supporting Hamas with? There isn't exactly a tank or armoured vehicle they can ride in. I really do doubt that the 300 or so children casualties were legitimate threats, let alone killed in the field of battle.

Oh and the correct quote is "Lighten up, Francis." Get it right. It's embarrassing otherwise.
Ok, and what if the targeted Hamas militant is under the age of 18?  In Iraq, we had kids around 14 hauling aroung AKs, trying to fight.  If a militant is under 18, do they get counted by the UN as a "child," or a "militant?"  What if, by the time anyone got there, the kids partners take the kids AK (waste not, want not?)

Yes, this is a hypothetical situation, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
2009-01-12 22:22:17
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

FEOS wrote:

It's less a question of the IDF tactics than Hamas' tactics. The IDF have repeatedly given up the tactical advantage of surprise in order to warn the populace (and thus Hamas, who embed themselves in civilian areas in violation of the GC) of impending strikes--how many times has Hamas warned Israelis that they are going to launch rockets into their neighborhood?

To even suggest that the IDF is targeting civilians (vice Hamas) is to ignore cold, hard facts. How would you recommend clearing Gaza of Hamas tunnels and rocket-associated infrastructure? Do you have an operational plan that will achieve that objective with zero civilian casualties, despite Hamas' strategy of placing civilians in harm's way for the propaganda value?

If you do, please share it.
Oh it's Hamas fault. They are just doing it for the propaganda dept. I see, thanks for clearing that up for me. It's less of question of the IDF tactics, heaven forbid they are using excessive force in civilian areas. Give me a break.

And I'm not suggesting the IDF are targetting civilians, how about you read anything I've written in this topic. Hell try reading some of my posts on this very page. Start with this one:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p2461666

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Yeah I agree with you, that Israel are not intentionally targeting civilians. However, the IDF are deliberately using over aggressive tactics which are causing more civilian casualties than you would expect and hope for. They have intentionally become lax in protecting the civilian population of Gaza because doing so can result in increased risk to their own soldiers.

They don't want another Lebanon, where the heavy casualties they suffered strengthened the cause of Hamas. They have done so at the cost of civilian lives.

Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives

Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives. And the cabinet took this into account when it approved the ground operation last Friday, so it has no reason to change its mind now.

Nor is it likely that Tuesday's incident, with its large number of civilian deaths, will result in an immediate cease-fire. Civilian deaths increase international pressure for a cease-fire and so the incident will probably bring the end of the war closer. Nevertheless, the Second Lebanon War continued for weeks following a similar incident at Kana.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053401.html

^this is from an Israeli news website.
I've said they are using excessive force. They have said they are using excessive force. You have said it's all the fault of Hamas and the number of children killed just reflects the numbers of children fighting with Hamas. I think there's only one of us who isn't blinded by the propaganda both sides seem to be using.

And mortar fire is one of the practices in a civilian area that would be a good tactic to halt, if you want my opinion. It's already caused the death of civilians hiding in a school under the watch of the UN. But don't let that stop you from blaming Hamas from hiding in the school, which they weren't. Or for firing out of the school. Which they didn't.

How hard is it to recognise that mortar fire and air strikes over Gaza is going to cause excessive casualties and then the situation becomes worse when the aid effort is hampered by Israeli blockades of the border areas in all directions. But don't worry, we'll send you a letter informing you were about to carpet bomb your home...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 22:23:52
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Poseidon wrote:

Oh you've got to be fucking kidding me. There's nothing the Jewish people "do" or have "done" throughout history to warrant what's occured with them. They didn't do anything in Europe in the 30's and 40's to warrant what happened to them, that's for sure. Jews as a people historically have just been hated no matter what they do. It's anti-semitism. It's deep within some people's thoughts. It's not going to stop.
Yes, every human being is naturally born anti-semitic
They need to stop playing the anti-semitism card and start working out why non-one wants them around, and haven't for thousands of years now.

If I travelled the world and everywhere I went whoever I met said 'Fuck off Dilbert, we don't want you here, in fact if you stick around we'll probably kill you.'

What should my response be?

- Run around pulling my hair yelling
'They're anti-Dilbertites! French, Germans, Russians, Arabs, Persians, Italians, they're all anti-Dilbertic!
God tells me I'm the greatest person on earth so it can't be something wrong with me, it must be them!
There are evil people travelling ahead of me poisoning their minds with anti-Dilbertism and conspiring against me!
Now I must be given a nice big house and a fat piece of someone elses land to compensate me for all the anti-Dilbertism I've experienced!'

Or maybe

- 'Hmm, there is something I'm doing wrong here, everyone I meet hates me, I'd better figure out whether its bad breath, bad body odour, or my general behaviour which is pissing people off, maybe its the way I speak to them, or my body language, or the clothes I wear.
Maybe I'm just bad at mixing with other people and should try to just stick to myself, live quietly and not bother anyone.
Whatever it is I'd better figure it out before I have nowhere else left to go'

Its their problem really and I don't want to hear any more about anti-semitism.
Either everyone on earth is born anti-semitic or there is some other issue.
Its their problem and its up to them to figure it out.

In the meantime I think not slaughtering Palestinian civilians, women and children would be a good step, its hardly helping people to like them which in the long run is going to be more useful to them than killing 500 out of 30,000 Hamas guys.
Fuck Israel
2009-01-12 22:26:09
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

imortal wrote:

Ok, and what if the targeted Hamas militant is under the age of 18?  In Iraq, we had kids around 14 hauling aroung AKs, trying to fight.  If a militant is under 18, do they get counted by the UN as a "child," or a "militant?"  What if, by the time anyone got there, the kids partners take the kids AK (waste not, want not?)

Yes, this is a hypothetical situation, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
What if? What if the number of casualties reported by the UN is completely false to gain sympathy for Hamas? I doubt it. The figures presented by the UN were civilian casualties. You know, the guys hiding inside their own homes and community?

Your probably right though, the 800 civilians must all have had their weapons taken away from them before anyone noticed that they were killed by the IDF. And the children? Well, they all must be supporters of Hamas, or if not, they were potential Hamas recruits. Better that they are dead, right?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 22:28:14
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

How would you recommend clearing Gaza of Hamas tunnels and rocket-associated infrastructure? Do you have an operational plan that will achieve that objective with zero civilian casualties, despite Hamas' strategy of placing civilians in harm's way for the propaganda value?
Simple enough, negotiate with them, apply diplomatic pressure, address the Israeli attacks on Gaza and vice versa.
Bombing is always the default position for you eh?
Fuck Israel
2009-01-12 22:30:52
imortal
Member
+240|6904|Austin, TX

TheAussieReaper wrote:

imortal wrote:

Ok, and what if the targeted Hamas militant is under the age of 18?  In Iraq, we had kids around 14 hauling aroung AKs, trying to fight.  If a militant is under 18, do they get counted by the UN as a "child," or a "militant?"  What if, by the time anyone got there, the kids partners take the kids AK (waste not, want not?)

Yes, this is a hypothetical situation, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
What if? What if the number of casualties reported by the UN is completely false to gain sympathy for Hamas? I doubt it. The figures presented by the UN were civilian casualties. You know, the guys hiding inside their own homes and community?

Your probably right though, the 800 civilians must all have had their weapons taken away from them before anyone noticed that they were killed by the IDF. And the children? Well, they all must be supporters of Hamas, or if not, they were potential Hamas recruits. Better that they are dead, right?
Ok, you have stepped out of reasonable debate into ranting and hyperbole. You are also projecting meaning into my statement and arguing against the meaning you put in, not against what was written.  Either way, you are not worth listening or responding right now.  I may check back in a week or so to see if things improve.  Of course, I doubt this thread will get any better.
2009-01-12 22:33:30
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

imortal wrote:

Ok, you have stepped out of reasonable debate into ranting and hyperbole. You are also projecting meaning into my statement and arguing against the meaning you put in, not against what was written.  Either way, you are not worth listening or responding right now.  I may check back in a week or so to see if things improve.  Of course, I doubt this thread will get any better.
Sorry you feel that way. I just doubt that it's all a conspiracy to get sympathy for Hamas\Palestinians when the numbers of dead reported don't reflect well on Israel.

Don't leave on my account.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-12 22:35:26
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
I bet this kid was delivering RPGs to Hamas, or maybe loading the mortar shells, eh FEOS?

https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/GAZA_jpg.jpg

FEOS wrote:

The IDF have repeatedly given up the tactical advantage of surprise in order to warn the populace
And where are they supposed to go exactly? The gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth.

Why do you always accept the Israeli position so unquestioningly?
You seem to believe anything they or your govt tell you, however ridiculous.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-12 22:39:46)

Fuck Israel
2009-01-12 23:35:37
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6633|The Gem Saloon

Dilbert_X wrote:

They need to stop playing the anti-semitism card and start working out why non-one wants them around, and haven't for thousands of years now.
i dont have a problem with jewish people, nor do i know anyone that has vowed to wipe them off the planet.
generalizations FTL dilby.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If I travelled the world and everywhere I went whoever I met said 'Fuck off Dilbert, we don't want you here, in fact if you stick around we'll probably kill you.'
make sure you get around to st louis

Dilbert_X wrote:

What should my response be?
surely not to defend yourself

Dilbert_X wrote:

- Run around pulling my hair yelling
'They're anti-Dilbertites! French, Germans, Russians, Arabs, Persians, Italians, they're all anti-Dilbertic!
God tells me I'm the greatest person on earth so it can't be something wrong with me, it must be them!
There are evil people travelling ahead of me poisoning their minds with anti-Dilbertism and conspiring against me!
Now I must be given a nice big house and a fat piece of someone elses land to compensate me for all the anti-Dilbertism I've experienced!'
wait...did you seriously just use YOURSELF in an analogy about a country? a religion?

what a self righteous little guy you are!

Dilbert_X wrote:

Or maybe

- 'Hmm, there is something I'm doing wrong here, everyone I meet hates me, I'd better figure out whether its bad breath, bad body odour, or my general behaviour which is pissing people off, maybe its the way I speak to them, or my body language, or the clothes I wear.
Maybe I'm just bad at mixing with other people and should try to just stick to myself, live quietly and not bother anyone.
Whatever it is I'd better figure it out before I have nowhere else left to go'
of course, you wouldnt want to stand up for what you believe in, cause the quickest way to an easy life lies in conformity.
yes dilbert, conform. lose your sense of identity...lose your principles and beliefs.
ever thought of being a politician? cause you sure move like one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its their problem really and I don't want to hear any more about anti-semitism.
lol?
then find another hobby?
it exists, whether it fits into your skewed outlook on the world, or not.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Either everyone on earth is born anti-semitic or there is some other issue.
another statement out of left field.
could it possibly be that someone is TEACHING people that?
i know, thats like REALLY out there, but just try and wrap your head around it for a minute...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its their problem and its up to them to figure it out.
they are, or have you not been keeping up?

Dilbert_X wrote:

In the meantime I think not slaughtering Palestinian civilians, women and children would be a good step, its hardly helping people to like them which in the long run is going to be more useful to them than killing 500 out of 30,000 Hamas guys.
sure buddy!
just as soon as they stop firing random rockets, they will stop attacking....

see how that works?
2009-01-13 01:12:51
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
You're missing the point, its the jews being persecuted, not me.
And they are failing at figuring it out, they are just behaving like children with their military attacks and blaming anti-semitism all the time.

But, its their problem, they can work it out or cease to exist, up to them really.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 … 64

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard