Escalation in the South - Hamas declares war; mobilizes reserves Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT | |
It's remarkable how you managed to completely ignore my post in which I explained that Al Quds and Al Aqsa, media groups that are the propaganda branch of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, are valid military targets, and any civilians happening to be inside, should've known better than to be in a building that counts as a military target, and is of strategic value. | |
oh shit WORLD WAR 3 IS COMING!!! | |
Okay might as well deal with this in one fell stroke. It was a MEDIA BUILDING. This is one of the locations where during a crisis foreign media outlets will set up shop on site because they need somewhere with the ability to broadcast from SAFELY and without fear. This firstly DOES NOT qualify as supporting the conflict in any way. Secondly I do not see how a TV network was a priority target or one of major 'strategic value' and required rockets being fired upon it. Thirdly, if the IDF knew that journalists from Sky were using the building as their broadcast location why couldn't they have warned them to get out of there? Don't tell me, Hamas were storing bombs and guns and a horde of elephants there too? This IS important because it not only shows how the Israeli government wish to not only silence opposing media viewpoints (propoganda or no) but that they don't care a jot about killing non-combatants or sparing damage to objective outsiders. That is a big deal. UPDATE: | |
No country but Israel, Gazah and maybe some Arab countries might be remotely motivated enough to send troops there. At most the rest of the world might send financial and supply aid. So i really doubt this would ever become a world war. It's not like a major country is rolling countries with good ties with big countries. | |
Hamas regularly sets up arms depots and firing sites in the middle of civilian areas. That is part of their modus operandi. They use civilians as human shields as they know that Israel will be more reluctant to fire upon them. This building was marked a military target because of its strategic value to Hamas. In this case, the communications and broadcast facilities supporting them. It directly hampers Hamas' efforts and makes it harder for them to communicate. To quote from this article:
Whenever a building such as this is targetted by Israel, it is because Hamas has set up shop there. Tragically, Hamas' use of civilians as human shields and launching rockets from residential areas paints many homes, schools and mosques as military targets and draws Israeli fire toward Palestinian civilians. But the IDF goes out of its way to warn civilians in targetted areas ahead of any attacks to minimise civilians living in the war zone. As was seen during Operation Cast Lead and presented to the UN: | |
Rubbish. It was the setup of Al Aqsa and Al Quds, propaganda groups for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Actual media merely worked with it because of the broadcasting equipment they had. And as parts of those two terror groups, both Al Quds and Al Aqsa are valid military targets. No actual journalists were harmed in the attack, and if they had, the same applies: Don't hang around valid military targets with strategic value, since it carries the risk of being injured or killed when the goal is attacked. Al Quds and Al Aqsa are not 'media'. They're parts of terrorist organisations who are waging war against Israel. As such they're open to attack from the IDF.
Because the experience is that if you do that, Hamas puts at least 30 small children on the roof within the hour as a human shield. Also because the foreign media broadcasters all knew what they were doing, and aren't complaing. They were using facilities run by a terrorist organisation, which carry the risk of being attacked attacked at any given time. Now this has happened, and they needed to set up a new signal relay, not a big deal. | |
They hit the communication equipment on top of the building, get over it. People who get into war zones know the risk, virtually every building in Gaza can be classified as a legitimate target, i can guarantee you that every other nation in the would would've demolished the building completely, all the major broadcasting station in Iraq were destroyed with in the first 90 min by Anti Radiation munitions. It has nothing to do with denying media coverage, Israel is not the US who did not let people set foot in Afghanistan or Iraq for months, BTW HAMAS has prevented over 20 foreign press personnel from leaving Gaza and there are unconfirmed reports(made by a Russian and German news agencies) that they were detained. In all honesty, the IDF conducted over 1200 attacks by now, over a 1000 of them were Airstrikes the number of casualties so far is not only low but its unprecedentedly low. When bombs go off people die, you can't expect a conflict to have no casualties and it's hypocritical of you to say that Israel should not have executed the strike when denying enemy communications is as basic as it gets in terms of strategy. P.S. The whole area received leaflets 3 times in the pass 48 hours, although they did not specify what targets would be hit they did urged people to get the frak out of there. | |
Have fun with that http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20386755 And I find it offensive those saying that the Palestinian journalists 'don't count' as media. What they broadcast may be considered propaganda but you'd be telling porkie pies if you said Israeli media is gonna be fair and balanced at all themselves right now. Freedom of the press is a goal aspired to by the civilized world. | |
It's still unprecedentedly low, check NATO statistics ;) | |
Urrrm thanks for the creepy wink...got a link? And dead bodies are still dead bodies. Yay there's LESS of them than their could be? | |
Why would someone take offense to people correctly stating that propagandists working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are not journalists? Do you also take offense to people cracking jokes about Mohamed "There are no Americans in Baghdad" Al Sahaf? | |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio P.S. | |
Got a non-wikipedia link? | |
Mmmmmmm Google's your friend http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15528984 | |
Mmmmmm timing is (not) your friend, it was after the mission ended, and after Human Rights Watch opened a formal UN sanctioned investigation into the civilian casualties while NATO was denying them.
Do i look like a 3rd year UG doing your post-grad for you? Wikipedia articles are cited, check the citations if your bias prevents you from accepting them, then either get your own sources or provide sufficiently accredited sources that conflict with the sources cited in the article. | |
Well isn't that just tarring all Arab media outlets with one brush? THAT's why its offensive. You don't think that they might actually be providing some information the community might need? Both sides are sending out propaganda (the Israeli's incredibly so with even kids books created on the subject) so blowing them up is just cool? Press freedoms should just be ignored?
Nope I found them hilarious, blowing him up with a rocket so he has only one leg...not so much. | |
Then grab a link that says what you want to say. You want me to dig through it instead? Otherwise don't just vomit up a whole page of citations at me. You sent me to a general Nato statistics wikipedia page. That's a bit vague. Asking for something just a little bit more focused is not outrageous. | |
From that same page i vomited upon you as you so bluntly claim. | |
Well you could have linked directly to the cited reference (a UN youtube video0. In which it does mention the use of civilians by Hamas but at no point mentions the one to one ratio quote on the wikipedia page. THAT is why I do not use wikipedia for specifics. | |
Israel ALWAYS responds in force, which is the problem if there is any amount of disturbance they bring it back 4 fold. When you stack casualties up on the two sides Israel comes out with the less dead civilians far less from recent memory. Now Israel can choose to do the most effective thing in the short term by continuing to do the most damage while destroying long term relations or it can maintain what it does and defend it's borders and shoot at missile sites away from civilian targets. Mostly it's the diplomatic approach though, they don't need to give Hamas what ever it wants but actually be willing to have relations with Palestine. And you can give me links for president so and so says he would if only Hamas does this, bullshit, Hamas wants to be respected which Israel doesn't do, as soon Hamas took over Israel said fuck it. Hamas doesn't think Israel deserves to exist as a nation from the past and now Israel's doing the same thing to them, how does that accomplish anything? It just sends the same message to both sides populace this won't end until the other side is destroyed. So unless you think one side does need to be destroyed you know one side has to get of their pedestal, I vote the side with the more educated, rich, and free public. | |
You realize that you are not denying anything I said, right? | |
Israel is now making a deliberate attempt to silence media attention in Gaza, by attacking well known buildings that house the international media. Clearly the pictures of children being killed in Israeli 'surgical strikes' being splashed all over the worlds TV news is not the best propaganda (from an Israelii perspective) so it would be better if these journalists were forced to relocate or at least restricted from reporting.
Except you appear to be totally uniformed of the facts, prahaps you should listen less to your friends and do some research.... Israel has a blockade on Gaza, dening Palestinans many basic supplies (ie fuel for electricity). Israel often stops things like toys, chocolate, musical instruments, balls, toilet paper, animal medicines getting to Gaza. According to the UN much of the recronstruction in Gaza was stopped because Israel refused to allow the cement, steel and wood into Gaza. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19975211
You did not bother to read the link from the UN I provided did you? Plenty of examples there of exactly those actions, provided by the UN. Please take the time to inform yourself of the facts before posting. I suggest you read in the UN reports on how the IDF stopped an ambulance attending a mentally handicapped man they had just shot for 2 hours (until he was dead) or how the IDF repeatedly fires at Palestinian farmers working on their land (when Hamas shoots at civilians it is 'terrorism' but the IDF can get away with it). or evicts Palestinians from their homes while letting the settlers stay. If Hamas had done these acts it is 'terrorism', but because it is Israel doing these same acts it is 'state security'.
Because children are generally not considered 'terrorists' that are a threat to 'state security', until an Israeli missile lands on their home and kills them (then it is 'Hamas using human shields'). Please explain why Israel killing 5 children asleep in their beds (by blowing their suburban home up with a missile) is not terrorism, while a Hamas missile blowing an Israeli home up is terrorism? If Hamas responded and targetted the home of the senior IDF officer who ordered this attack, killing 5 of his children, would that be 'terrorism' or 'state security'? | |
Im sorry, im not sure if im reading this correctly. Its ok to attack media installations because they are (brown) journalists that you consider to be propaganda? Nowadays, pretty much ALL media is propaganda. Which, according to you people, means all media buildings are pretty much military targets. OT: it is clear that Israel would prefer certain "news broadcasts" not to be sent. You know, they got a bit of flak for their use of white phosphor as a weapon, you know, that stuff that usage is considered a warcrime. Also, saying "its ok to assassinate these officials because they are terrorists" is frankly - stupid beyond any measure. But at this point i do not expect anything more. | |
.
. Because it has less dead Israel is wrong in what its doing? Hamas itself proved to us that it values Israeli lives a thousand times more than the lives of their fellow Palestinians. You can't have a relationship of acknowledge Hamas as it is a terrorist organization out to destroy Israel. If you can get that into your head, I don't know if I can continue talking with you - Israel had never talked directly with Hamas. It had always used negotiators from the Egyptian side or another side, (and in the case of the prisoner exchange with Cpl. Shalit a private individual with lots of connections to terrorist organizations). It can't negotiate with it directly because Hamas wishes death to all of Israel and that they will leave this land. It doesn't recognize it as a country, yet Israel needs to recognize this Hamas as a country? Are you even listening to yourself? You're blaming Israel and its people for not lowering their weapons and allowing the enemy to massacre them. First the relationship needs to be normalized, and now Hamas thinks it has the upper hand and won't agree to any of the suggestions made by the truce brokers in Cairo. Hell, they're even talking with Islamic Jihad which is even more extreme than Hamas. | |
. The usage of white phosphorus in Cast Lead had proven to be legal, but people who saw it being used in Gaza screamed war-crime like mad even before anybody investigated the issue. These 'officials' are high ranking soldiers, people who organize these attacks and coordinate between all of the soldiers on the ground their roles, etc. | |
Then i wonder what your opinion on this is. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza Because from what i understand, here - they are using white phosphorus shells to bomb a school. | |
. EDIT: They didn't bomb the school. Look at how they wrote it. | |
2009 is not that long ago considering how both sides cite events from well beyond 20 years ago. Do you consider this to be a responsible action? Now tell me, how would you feel when some big country would indeed consider this an terrorist action. Then, they would decide that your PM or some other person of importance (general etc) is the one who ordered this attack, and decided to assassinate him "because he is a terrorist". Do you see how this whole mess could go wrong? | |
. One issue here. Hamas is not a country. It is not in the UN. It is acknowledged as a terrorist organization by more than just a handful of nations. Israel is a country. It is in the UN. It is acknowledged as a country by many other countries. Hamas is a terrorist organization not because Israel says so, but because international law brands them so. Saying that Israel is a terrorist state and then pointing at something they did at a war, something that can be seen as 'evil' or whatever you want to call it - while in fact it is legal in a war, isn't the same. Hamas tv stations did transmit propaganda. They said that they had hit the Parliament building in Jerusalem, that they have harmed and attacked Tel-Avid, that they have downed an Israeli jet, etc. etc. It was all made to rally people behind them and show them that Hamas is winning this war. Not the same I can say about Israel. Israel tries its own soldiers when they break their laws of engagement (and any other laws in the IDF which are based on international law). Hamas doesn't have to do that because it's a terrorist organization. | |
I know all of this. Considering half the nonsense you're writing I would make a confident wager that I know more about the middle east than you do. Israel does have a blockade on Gaza, a legal blockade, but that is not what I was discussing. A poster said "until Israel gives them equal rights..." suggesting that Palestinian arabs should have the same rights, in Israel, as her own citizens. My point was that Palestinian arabs are not Israeli citizens and thus would not get the rights of one.
Which link?
There aren't any West bank settlements built in Palestinian areas. The West Bank is divided into zones and all of the the Jewish settlements are in area C. Irrespective, I'm not sure what that has to do with this as it's Gaza and Hamas the IDF are at war with. It's already established that settlements have nothing to do with the conflict as demonstrated when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, only for Hamas to seize control of the territory in 2007 and terror attacks intensified.
As it is well documented and reported by news agencies around the world, Hamas uses their civilian population as human shields. By hiding arms and launchers in peoples' homes, schools and playgrounds they force the IDF to return fire into Gaza's residential areas. What Hamas does, intentionally putting Gazan citizens in harms way and further, by targeting Israeli civilians and not just military targets Hamas commits war crimes with each and every rocket fired.
I'm not sure where you're getting children from. Hamas are firing rockets from Gaza, into Israel, indiscriminately targetting her civilians. I don't think this particular point is open to a great deal of debate. As such, Israel is under attack and unless you deny a soverign state the right to defend itself, has to take out the terrorists and their munitions to prevent the attacks. As mentioned above, Hamas launch their rockets from homes and playgrounds knowing that the IDF always seeks to avoid harming civilians, even those in the combat zone. Inevitably people die in war...I'm not sure what you expect will happen if a rocket hits a building with people in it.
It's both. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Hamas indiscriminately target civilians, as can be seen by watching any news report. That is actually a war crime and terrorism. Israel has to remove the threat against her citizens as a matter of state security. I'm not sure how you can be confused by these terms. | |
Yes, i can see your point, but mine still stands. Like you said, "Hamas is not a country". It stands to different standards. What Hamas does is a crime. Im not going to deny it, because it would be stupid. But if Israel did exactly the same, it wouldn't be just a crime. A country is held to higher standards. Israel uses disappropriate force. So not only are they meeting Hamas, they are going "just a tad bit" over the top. Also, like you said - it is a war. | |
Was it okay for the USA to kill Osama Bin Laden or take the fight to Al-Qaeeda? Hamas, like Hezbollah and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are a militant, Islamist group dedicated to the eradication of Jews and the State of Israel. They do all the usual jihadist nonsense like wearing balaclavas, drowning in rivers of their enemies blood in the name of Allah, declaring jihads and fatwahs and getting revenge for their Muslim brothers and sisters. They stone homosexuals, rape and beat their women, dream of martyring themselves, literally the whole 9 yards. They vehemently hate the West, the US, the UK and are constantly burning flags. Al-Jabari was the leader of the military wing of the terrorist organisation. Killing him was a massive blow to Hamas, whose leadership are being killed slowly. By taking out the infrastructure, all there'll be left at the end is the grunts without organisation. He was responsible for a huge number of attacks on Israeli citizens, directly and indirectly. Israel is trying to take out Hamas leadserhip and offensive capabilities and taking out their top military guy seems like pretty sensible tactic. | |
In what way is the force disproportionate? Is it because Israel has such a technological and military advantage? To put it into perspective: Hamas escalated its attacks against Israeli citizens in October and November 2012, launching massive barrages of mortars and rockets, forcing Israel to take military action. What action should Israel take then, if not to use any means necessary to stop these indiscriminate rocket attacks against its citizens? Write to the UN? Israel asked the UN to condemn the terrorist attacks, but the UN did not. They wrote a formal letter to the UN Security Council and secretary-general on October 24 and again on November 12. | |
. Hamas is itself being criticized in the Arab world. Do you hear about it? No, because it's not Israel. Hamas is being criticized for its actions and its stubbornness in negotiations. It's just waiting for Israel to slip up and then show the pictures to the world, which he hopes would result in an outcry from other governments. They expected Egypt to support them - but they only do so in public and in reality they are not that eager to help Hamas. You have no idea about the military significance this has. You're reading articles and the like, but what do you know? Only what they are telling you. Israel had put a target in fornt of them - lower the amount of rockets fired at Israel and bring back its retaliation so that its enemies will fear attacking it. Not stop the rocket fire or even uproot Hamas - these are the simple goals here. They want Hamas to cave in and comply to a truce enforced and backed by Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. If Hamas then slips up, it has to answer to those nations, not just Israel's missiles. | |
| Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT | |
I normally don't take sides here, because when it comes to this fighting, neither side has the moral high ground. Israel broke off diplomacy during the Clinton administration a while ago thanks to the current leader and his militant anti-Palestinian stance. That said, one can hardly blame him when HAMAS begins lobbing rockets at civs like candy.
When you have something like this, I don't think foreign powers should intervene for anything other than peace. If Egypt invades on behalf of Palestine then I will side with Israel, to me this is just a civil war without any real good guys. I would discourage Israel from turning off Palestine's internet but aside from that I am staying neutral.