Australian Politics Forum - Greens caught out over Israel

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #60 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:49pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas.

if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks?

as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

Actually no - I denounce Hamas just as much as I do Israel, especially since the party actually has a denouncement of Israel and a mission of destroying Israel in their party manifesto.

However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #61 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:02pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

So then it's not for the Sergeant or the Captain of a platoon then on the front lines then who's actually dodging bullets and putting their life on the line.

Outstanding, because they would have better things to do.

I'm sure the General's commanding the divisions and regiments then would love to have a lawyer come and replace their copy of Sun Tzu, and updated Battle plan with a fresh copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare", and they can all sit around and eat fairy bread and drink Koolaid, whilst the lawyer gives them a training session.

Even better, perhaps a regiment of international lawyers to lead the assault could well pave the way to change in the way armies fight.

Then again, it might lead to a lot of dead lawyers.

OMG, I think you've gone completely off the loop here.

This was a strategic mission, and was a bombing. It's not like these troops just stormed in and just decided to open fire because there was risk to their life. THERE WAS NO RISK TO THEIR LIFE BECAUSE IT WASN"T A GROUND MISSION AND A ROCK THROWN BACK HERE AND THERE. The mission was planned, and determined to be of reasonable force, PRIOR to it occuring. At this stage, those who planned it and the Israeli government for approving it, acted illegally because quite clearly bombing "strategic" schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and killing off thousands, was NOT reasonable force, when the casualties on the other side were 0. Especially since those Palestinians killed were NOT military. And especially because when you are bombing in civilian areas you have a duty of care to ensure you hit the target, but avoid civilian death (meaning if you know there are still thousands in the area you don't keep going and bombing - you send ground troops in, which WAS DONE in IRAQ by the US. )

It is always a factor in mission planning to determine a "reasonable" number of civilian casualties - that's a known fact. In this case I can't understand how thousands would be "reasonable" considering the danger to the Israeli army was, from the evidence, nothing. Not only that, but this was BOMBINGS - not even ground offensives. In this case, Israel had a legal obligation to minimise casualties. They didn't. Full stop because it no longer becomes justified but a MASSACRE of innocent people. And can I say this again: INNOCENT.

You really need to get this through your thick head because seriously you are now starting to argue complete and utter waffle. I can take waffle from some on this forum because that's all they can ever do anyway, but I thought you had some more sense. Stop arguing for arguments sake - what you're saying defies simple logic.

I would say 1400 casualties in a poky area the size of Gaza with a population of 1.5 million crammed in their was quite modest.
Do you like that logic, and you would find it difficult to refute.
How many were vaporised during Shock & Awe. It would have been 1400 in the first hour alone.
And in those 1400 civilians were the hundreds of civilians that were launching rockets from inside schools, hospitals and near UN compounds.
Everyone is a civilian in Gaza, but also those that fire military grade weapons into Israeli homes.
Sorry, they were enemy combatants who wore civilian clothes.
And as these enemy combatants were firing from these areas, it is quite reasonable that the IDF return fire to the launch sites don't you think?
Or do you think they should have had these sites off limits and just allowed Hamas to pound Israel from these 'off limit' areas.
Are you ok with that?
Even though as you rightfully pointed out it wasn't primarily a ground mission, the ongoing incessant indiscriminate missile attacks on Israeli civilians (who are civilians) had been going on for 6 years.
And your right, the general invasion plan would have been established prior, but given Gaza has been sending missiles over for 6 years prior that, a plan would have to be expected.
Instead of worrying whether enemy combatants that make war on Jews by firing indiscriminately into their towns are 'civilians', or whether policemen armed with anti aircraft missiles are 'civilians', you should be more concerned with Hamas firing these weapons using innocent woman and children as human shields.
Even if these innocents are happy to die as martyrs.
I'm sorry you didn't like my lawyers fairy bread and koolaid waffle, but I still find the vision of a regiment of curly wigged lawyers brandishing their copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare" charging into battle quite funny.
But dispite what the international lawyers may proclaim, there is just no pc and nice way to kill someone in war.
Perhaps the lawyers should leave the combat details to the professionals.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #62 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war. The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire. In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won." Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #63 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

I would say 1400 casualties in a poky area the size of Gaza with a population of 1.5 million crammed in their was quite modest.
Do you like that logic, and you would find it difficult to refute.
How many were vaporised during Shock & Awe. It would have been 1400 in the first hour alone.
And in those 1400 civilians were the hundreds of civilians that were launching rockets from inside schools, hospitals and near UN compounds.
Everyone is a civilian in Gaza, but also those that fire military grade weapons into Israeli homes.
Sorry, they were enemy combatants who wore civilian clothes.
And as these enemy combatants were firing from these areas, it is quite reasonable that the IDF return fire to the launch sites don't you think?
Or do you think they should have had these sites off limits and just allowed Hamas to pound Israel from these 'off limit' areas.
Are you ok with that?
Even though as you rightfully pointed out it wasn't primarily a ground mission, the ongoing incessant indiscriminate missile attacks on Israeli civilians (who are civilians) had been going on for 6 years.
And your right, the general invasion plan would have been established prior, but given Gaza has been sending missiles over for 6 years prior that, a plan would have to be expected.
Instead of worrying whether enemy combatants that make war on Jews by firing indiscriminately into their towns are 'civilians', or whether policemen armed with anti aircraft missiles are 'civilians', you should be more concerned with Hamas firing these weapons using innocent woman and children as human shields.
Even if these innocents are happy to die as martyrs.
I'm sorry you didn't like my lawyers fairy bread and koolaid waffle, but I still find the vision of a regiment of curly wigged lawyers brandishing their copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare" charging into battle quite funny.
But dispite what the international lawyers may proclaim, there is just no pc and nice way to kill someone in war.
Perhaps the lawyers should leave the combat details to the professionals.

I stopped reading after your first line. It's definitely nice to see you can compare results in casualties to be able to say "modest." Good to know you can make that judgement. Very nice.

Too bad that's not the point. The point is how disproportionate the war was. 1400 on one side. 13 on the other. And the aim was to destroy military targets, and government targets? Yeh.

Go do some research before doing relative determination of what is modest. Seriously, it's becoming annoying repeating because u keep restating the same bull crap.

And one more thing: I will again repeat that Hamas's actions are not something I agree to either, but in the end that doesn't justify, and NEVER WILL justify, forgetting how to conduct an attack.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #64 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war. The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire. In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won." Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

Oh, well *phew* that's a relief. Only 1400? Yay!

You nut. Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #65 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:16pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action.
But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens.

It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law. That's what you don't quite understand.

It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal. In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military. Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational.

Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate. It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't. The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government.

There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives. It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.

And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people???
Of course their military response was legal and justified.
They had no choice but to respond.
You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team?
Or 6000 for the team.
And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified.
It's war.
And war's are fought to be won.
If you want fair, play scrabble.
But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified.
And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza.
Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians.
Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes.

Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified. Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance.

And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions. Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY.

When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE. Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.

In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all. They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met. For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected. Sad nutjobs.

Yes they did fulfill their mission.
Many Hamas rocketeers and mortar crew were killed, and many factories that made those katyusha rockets identified previously and were reduced to rubble.
And 1400 from 1.5 million people is not a massacre.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:44pm by chicken_lipsforme »

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #66 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:19pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action.
But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens.

It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law. That's what you don't quite understand.

It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal. In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military. Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational.

Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate. It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't. The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government.

There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives. It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.

And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people???
Of course their military response was legal and justified.
They had no choice but to respond.
You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team?
Or 6000 for the team.
And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified.
It's war.
And war's are fought to be won.
If you want fair, play scrabble.
But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified.
And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza.
Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians.
Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes.

Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified. Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance.

And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions. Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY.

When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE. Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.

In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all. They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met. For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected. Sad nutjobs.

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas.

if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks?

as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

An interesting point also is the IDF was also receiving intelligence through the mobile phone network on the location of terrorists from Gaza residents themselves.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm by chicken_lipsforme »

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #67 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action.
But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens.

It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law. That's what you don't quite understand.

It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal. In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military. Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational.

Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate. It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't. The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government.

There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives. It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.

And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people???
Of course their military response was legal and justified.
They had no choice but to respond.
You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team?
Or 6000 for the team.
And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified.
It's war.
And war's are fought to be won.
If you want fair, play scrabble.
But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified.
And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza.
Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians.
Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes.

Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified. Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance.

And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions. Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY.

When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE. Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.

In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all. They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met. For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected. Sad nutjobs.

Yes they did fulfill their mission.
Many Hamas rocketeers and mortar crew were killed, and many factories that made those katyusha rockets identified previously and were reduced to rubble.
And 1400 from 4.5 million people is not a massacre.

1.67million in the Gaza strip - not 4.5 million.

And it is a massacre when duty of care wasn't followed.

Would you like to now go through all of this again? Or can you come up with something new, and with actually some evidence? Instead of continuously being relative in an argument you can't substantiate.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #68 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war. The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire. In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won." Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

Oh, well *phew* that's a relief. Only 1400? Yay!

You nut. Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3...

And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #69 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:21pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action.
But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens.

It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law. That's what you don't quite understand.

It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal. In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military. Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational.

Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate. It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't. The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government.

There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives. It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.

And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people???
Of course their military response was legal and justified.
They had no choice but to respond.
You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team?
Or 6000 for the team.
And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified.
It's war.
And war's are fought to be won.
If you want fair, play scrabble.
But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified.
And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza.
Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians.
Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes.

Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified. Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance.

And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions. Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY.

When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE. Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.

In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all. They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met. For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected. Sad nutjobs.

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas.

if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks?

as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

An interesting point alsi is the IDF was also receiving intelligence through the mobile phone network on the location of terrorists from Gaza residents themselves.

are these the same residents they later killed off, just in case?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #70 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war. The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire. In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won." Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

Oh, well *phew* that's a relief. Only 1400? Yay!

You nut. Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3...

And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants....

Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #71 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas.

if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks?

as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack.

And in which war has this EVER occurred in before.
What army EVER on the planet EVER went into a suburban combat situation and removed the civilians BEFORE launching the ground assault?
Sorry, it's never happened and will never happen.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #72 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:28pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas.

if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks?

as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack.

And in which war has this EVER occurred in before.
What army EVER on the planet EVER went into a suburban combat situation and removed the civilians BEFORE launching the ground assault?
Sorry, it's never happened and will never happen.

Hence why rockets are not fired at civilian locations, and at military locations.

But I'm afraid international law still stands, and we can argue this all into the night. The point is that your attempts to judge by using other excuses doesn't negate Israel's responsibilities during this attack. And being that the result ended up being 1400 vs 13, it's quite clear that Israel's responsibilities were not met.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #73 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:29pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war. The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire. In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won." Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

Oh, well *phew* that's a relief. Only 1400? Yay!

You nut. Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3...

And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants....

Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!

Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action???

The idea is, after all, to win...
To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

And do you seriously think that if it'd been Hamas, with all the advanced weapons, that the civilian Israeli casualties would have only been around 50% of the combatant casualties???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #74 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:30pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war. The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire. In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won." Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

Oh, well *phew* that's a relief. Only 1400? Yay!

You nut. Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3...

And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants....

Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!

Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action???

The idea is, after all, to win...
To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this. But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate

Oh, and thanks for providing the quote

Very nice

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged