You'll also find it's only ever the other team that commits war crimes. When you indiscriminately nuke a city that's just a thing that needed to be done.
M
member 1013
Guest
Are you saying the liberal corporate media has an agenda against Israel?
Hamas has fired hundreds of missiles indiscriminately into Israel. Israel has bombed many locations.
I don't really see these two things as significantly different given the history and ongoing back and forth.
I see some appeals to proportionate force here and in the media. I'm conflicted about such an idea. On the one hand I understand trying to limit loss of life in general. But from the standpoint of Israel's response, what is proportionate? Are they allowed to penalize harshly as a deterrent? Is it better for them to lob a few missiles back and keep the tit for tat going, further endangering their own citizens?
I mean war is hell and shit. You don't typically fight a war to just barely participate. You do so to crush the threat.
The only difference in deaths on each side appears to be infrastructure related, not intent by the parties involved. And so is there a moral difference in the actions?
I don't really see these two things as significantly different given the history and ongoing back and forth.
I see some appeals to proportionate force here and in the media. I'm conflicted about such an idea. On the one hand I understand trying to limit loss of life in general. But from the standpoint of Israel's response, what is proportionate? Are they allowed to penalize harshly as a deterrent? Is it better for them to lob a few missiles back and keep the tit for tat going, further endangering their own citizens?
I mean war is hell and shit. You don't typically fight a war to just barely participate. You do so to crush the threat.
The only difference in deaths on each side appears to be infrastructure related, not intent by the parties involved. And so is there a moral difference in the actions?
M
member 3289
Guest
No one is suggesting that. But it's laughable that the AP puts out a statement saying they actively check whether or not Hamas is active in buildings the AP uses, as if they would be able to prevent it.
Hamas runs Gaza. They intentionally store weapons and fighters close to schools to lessen the likelihood that these places will be bombed. This has been shown. The idea that they wouldn't be able to, or wouldn't go so low as to, store weapons in a building occupied by foreign media is laughable.
I understand people wanting to see proof from Israel. That's fair. But let's not forget that the AP got all their employees out in time. No foreign journalists were killed because Israel gave advanced warning of the strike. That is an important point.
Israel said they could stop launching missiles at them on their own, or Israel would make them stop.
Hamas made their bed, now they get to sleep in it
M
member 3289
Guest
Hamas targets civilians. Israel targets militants.
If you don't see these two things as significantly different then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Well of course there's a difference there because we're back to intent.
But what's the current civilian death ratio for targeted hits by Israel? A quick Google shows me that from 2000 to 2010 it's damn near a one-to-one ratio with documented sources that depending on the targeted hit Israel is willing to accept higher amounts of civilian casualties. If you kill a civilian for every target are you really not targeting civilians? Just how targeted are you really?
I see some links showing improvement in this front by Israel in recent years with even more targeted strikes. But it's hard to ignore a recent decade-long period Of civilians routinely being killed and nearly every single "targeted" strike.
With that said my post is primarily about what people expect is it proportionate use of force by Israel and response to Hamas? Is there one? That's the point I was going after. And if the only reason that there are such a disproportionate loss of life is infrastructure and not intent then simply going by a number of deaths fails to capture the moral expectation on either side of this war.
M
member 1013
Guest
I suggest the response by Israel is to not start the conflicts at all. This can be achieved by not treating the arab portion of it's populace as sub human.
Not at all. I'm saying the corporate media has an agenda against groups or individuals who might challenge the status quo.
This is how Dick Cheney's daughter becomes the new face of what republicans should aspire to be.
The population in Israel proper or in disputed territories?
Convoy of cars shout anti-semitic abuse through Jewish community
it wasn’t
@SongExotic2 because he doesn’t have a car.
it wasn’t
@SongExotic2 because he doesn’t have a car.
England, gonna England.Convoy of cars shout anti-semitic abuse through Jewish community
it wasn’t
M
member 1013
Guest
It's pretty disgusting. A legacy of occupation and abuse.
M
member 1013
Guest
Member all the white nationalists that came out against BLM? Like actual skinhead groups. Sad.
M
member 3289
Guest
How did they start this one again? Was it when they had tens of thousands of people rioting outside a holy site or when they started firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas?
M
member 1013
Guest
Are you and
@Fingers still friends?
M
member 3289
Guest
Why not both?
Until Israel takes the Oslo peace accord seriously how can they be trusted? They renege on every UN resolution and will not accept war crimes charges brought by the UN. If this was Iran or Paraguay they would be treated as rogue states and have sanctions against them.
And I'm not sure what you mean by disputed territories? The land taken by the Israel occupiers illegal under the court of international law or actual Gaza and The West Bank?
Apart from the late rent this can be pinpointed to when the Israelis attacked the mosque.
You can't build the greatest empire in the history of the world, set up western civilization as you know it whilst also teaching the world a global language without breaking a few eggs.
Can you.
