Australian Politics Forum - Greens caught out over Israel

Life_goes_on

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 4772
400kms south of Yobsville, Qld
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #75 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:41pm

Quote:

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

Leaflet drops into towns and cities warning of impending attack was done quite often during WW2 by both the Germans and the Allies.
It got the civilians moving rearwards and choking up lines of supply needed by the defenders.

Back to top

"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013

Num num num num.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #76 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:42pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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.

Research is not required when comparing 1400 to 1.5 million.
You have a calculator, do the math.
Hang on, I'll do it for you.
That's 1 in every 1071 people in Gaza.
That's less that an eighth of one percent.
Yes that's right, less than an eighth of one percent.
That's modest to me.
Does your calculator say otherwise?
And disproportionate was not in Sun Tzu, or in any warfare manual I ever read.
Is that in the new International lawyers trusty handbook on warfare?
Would you have felt better that Hamas terrorists had killed 1400 IDF personel then?
Personally, I feel better knowing they can't hit the side of a kibbutz at 50 paces with a katyusha rocket or a grenade launcher.
Should the Israeli ground forces that did go into Gaza have stood still whilst they were being fired upon to even things up a bit?
So they could be 'fair' and equitable.
Should more male soldiers have stood still as opposed to female soldiers?
More over 21's or more under 21's?
It's not Israel's fault Hamas are lousy shots.
It's also not Israel's fault Hamas gathered kiddies around then and used schools and hospitals as launch sites.

Back to top

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

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #77 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

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 #78 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

The results were confirmed by western NGOs. And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around. Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

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 #79 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:51pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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.

You will be pleased to know I fixed my numerical typo earlier.

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 #80 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:54pm

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."

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???

That's beautiful Gizmo.
Thanks.
It's the nicest quotation I've heard this week.
But don't wait up tonight for an answer to the proportionate question from alavine.

Back to top

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

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #81 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:58pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

The results were confirmed by western NGOs. And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around. Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

And how did the western NGOs determine this???...They ASKED the people who brought the wounded/dead in....

Not exactly an accurate method in a place controlled by one of the protagonists in a conflict, now is it??

Not fishing around, just speculating.....and remembering stories family members have told about situations like Vietnam.....where the guy who served you breakfast in the morning was the same guy who'd fired mortars at your tent last night...

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

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #82 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:01pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

The results were confirmed by western NGOs. And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around. Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

How about Goldstone back peddling on his report to the UN recently admitting he got it wrong, and the Israeli's are now demanding a retraction.
You like that proof?
And those left wing NGO's wouldn't know a Hamas terrorist from a civilian.
They don't have name badges on you know.

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 #83 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:07pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

The results were confirmed by western NGOs. And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around. Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

How about Goldstone back peddling on his report to the UN recently admitting he got it wrong, and the Israeli's are now demanding a retraction.
You like that proof?
And those left wing NGO's wouldn't know a Hamas terrorist from a civilian.
They don't have name badges on you know.

Like I said, make a video about it because it sounds like a surreal conspiracy.

Any "justification" will do for a nut rightard, ey? Seriously.

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:	Re: Greens caught out over Israel Reply #84 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:09pm Don't add this into your conspiracy theory. It must be some left wing nuts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7952603.stm
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

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #85 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:10pm

Probably the best thing to do is arm both sides evenly.
Everything except Nukes, if your going to do something do it right, nukes contaminate the area for too long, Chemical, YEAH!!! Bring them on.
Allow 3 weeks & as many ships as needed to ferry, those not interested in fighting from both sides & are ok living with each other, out to safety.
Then pull all the press out & let them go for it.
There should be about 3 heavy wounded men left in 6 months & then we can allow the rest to move back & live in peace.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23619 Gender:	Re: Greens caught out over Israel Reply #86 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:14pm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8276943/Israel-aimed-to-cleanse-Gaza-neighbourhoods-in-2008-invasion.html
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:	Re: Greens caught out over Israel Reply #87 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:14pm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8257446.stm
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 #88 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:27pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

The results were confirmed by western NGOs. And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around. Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

How about Goldstone back peddling on his report to the UN recently admitting he got it wrong, and the Israeli's are now demanding a retraction.
You like that proof?
And those left wing NGO's wouldn't know a Hamas terrorist from a civilian.
They don't have name badges on you know.

Actually, Goldstone wasn't 'back peddling'....he'd included all that in the original report....it's just that no one mentioned it....not the world media..and NOT the UN..

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

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14248
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: Greens caught out over Israel
Reply #89 - Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:38pm

Liberals Caught Out in Jewish Slur

May 12, 2008

THE Victorian Liberal campaign director who sent an anti-Semitic email to a colleague has quit her job and apologised for her remark.
State president David Kemp said Susan Chandler was given the option of quitting or being sacked.

Chandler had described a candidate in an email as a

"greedy f***ing jew"

In the latest shot fired in an internal party war that has the Liberals reeling, an email, forwarded from campaign officer John Osborn, shows Ms Chandler making the reference to Liberal Party candidate Adam Held.

The anti-Semitic remark follows a request from Mr Held for more election campaign pamphlets in October last year.

Mr Osborn, was fired after a secret investigation found he and fellow staffer Simon Morgan posted damaging comments on Liberal website blog, called on the State President to sack Ms Chandler immediately.

“I am comprehensively appalled at the clearly anti-Semitic nature of Ms. Chandler’s email,” Mr Osborn said in an email to 3AW.

“Ms Chandler’s involvement as an investigator has tainted the process irrevocably and her involvement in the Federal by-election campaign for Gippsland is a concern.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/anti-jew-claim-latest-in-anti-baillieu-campaign...

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged