quote:CNN is running a poll (here). The question is "I support Israel" vs "I support 'Palestine.'" (Btw, there is no such thing, and Palestine is Israel [the name comes from the Roman Empire], but that for another day).
Every time I tried to vote it says, "Your vote cannot be verified. Come back in 2 hours". This has happened to me for two days running now. When the notoriously leftarded AOL ran the same poll, Israel won overwhelmingly.
I SAY CNN (WHO HAPPILY RUNS JIHAD PORN) IS SKEWING THE VOTE. What have my readers experienced? Every email I have received (roughly 30ish) have experienced the same thing and they are all voting Israel.
DAMN YOU CNN AND YOUR JIHAD PORN
wow what a batty site.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The use of white phosphorus in civilian areas has been banned by the Geneva convention. Its use on a civilian establishment alone constitutes a war crime.
The UNRWA provide food and aid to over 1 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza. It is desperately needed at this instant.
The Israeli's have claimed that Hamas fired on them from within the UN site, a claim which has been denied by the UN spokesman.
The site was being used to house hundreds refugees fleeing the Israel assault.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Even if someone *did* fire on them from that location, I can't imagine there is any building in Gaza that determined members of Hamas couldn't fire from. Does that mean the Hamas gets to decide which structures stand and which do not merely by poking their AKs out the right windows?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if they keep attacking UN buildings and all the relief agencies pull out, maybe everyone will just starve to death and then Israel can blame the UN for letting it happen.
As for white phosphorus, I await more confirmation before believing that Israel would really go that far. I know the Times said they confirmed it, and some relief agencies made unverified claims, but I still need to see more.
Shelling hospitals and relief agency warehouses bothers me. A stray shot hitting a building where the press is located seems either more like an accident, or a sign that they really shouldn't be in the middle of a war zone like that. Just because you're with the press doesn't give you a magic shield. One of the things Israel will have on its side when this conflict is over is that, despite the fact that the press is putting up some really negative things for Israel now, when they pull out and the devastation wreaked now really hits home and the suffering balloons...the press will be nowhere in sight. War zones they'll cover, random suffering like that? Dime a dozen.
If I stand corrected and they really do cover it, that would go a long way towards pushing me to believe there's a more serious anti-Israel news bias than I thought.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel admitted to using white phosphorus on military targets in the war in Lebanon but claimed that the use was within the rules. They have not denied using white phosphorus on the UN headquarters or in Gaza. They have claimed it was legal.
Here is the relevant section of the Geneva Convention.
quote: 1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It should be noted that Israel is not a signatory to this portion of the convention.
[ January 15, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
If I stand corrected and they really do cover it, that would go a long way towards pushing me to believe there's a more serious anti-Israel news bias than I thought.
So do you think that the press should not provide any coverage of Gaza post-conflict?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I get your point either Lyrhawn. I would presume that an unbiased media would be covering the human suffering in the aftermath of the war and not just the bombing.
If there is continued coverage of the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, that would go along way to persuading me that the Pro-Israeli news bias isn't as serious as I thought.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm, I think he's saying simply that staying in the area post-war would be a change from the status quo for the Western press (his perception being that the press usually leaves after a war) and that this change might indicate a bias.
This is perhaps an overly cynical view given that the Western press seems to enjoy poking around Tibet, riots or no riots.
posted
According to the International Red Cross and Crescent, which is anything but pro-Israel, it has seen no signs that Israel has used white phosphorus in ways that are contrary to law. (link).
On the other hand, Hamas has fired white phosphorus at civilians (link), and the silence of CNN and the Times is deafening.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the clarification. I thought I saw in that article that they claimed they hadn't used it at all. I must have misread.
Natural Mystic -
No, I think they should cover it. But I would find it extremely odd that they rarely even pay lip service to other conflicts, like the many ongoing crises in Africa, or Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the world, and for that matter, that Gaza has been an open air camp for awhile now and that didn't receive coverage until the bombs started to fall, but if all of a sudden they really zoomed in on the aftermath in a way that's unlike the attention they've paid to other conflicts, then that to me might signal a bias.
An unbiased media would cover all news stories equally, not just the ones that make a particular country look bad. So yes, I DO think they should cover the post conflict results in Gaza, but I also think they should provide continuing coverage of a lot of other problems in the world, but they don't.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unexploded ordinance found in a remote desert location rarely gets the same level of press and burning UN aid buildings.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That report made by the Red Cross was made before the bombing of the UN headquarters. It indicates that Israel had only been using white phosphorus to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screens for day attacks.
Dropping 4 phosphorus bombs on UN headquarters, if that is what happened, is quite different and quite clearly proscribed by the Geneva convention.
Heck, dropping any sort of bomb on a UN facility that is acting as and aid station and providing shelter for civilian refugees, clearly violates the intent of the convention.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Heck, dropping any sort of bomb on a UN facility that is acting as and aid station and providing shelter for civilian refugees, clearly violates the intent of the convention.
If done deliberately, then yes. Accidents do happen, though; remember the Chinese embassy in the Serbian conflict?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Heck, dropping any sort of bomb on a UN facility that is acting as and aid station and providing shelter for civilian refugees, clearly violates the intent of the convention.
If done deliberately, then yes. Accidents do happen, though; remember the Chinese embassy in the Serbian conflict?
Yes, but this wasn't one stray bomb. It was a barrage and the Israeli's have admitted it was not an accident.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the time, I thought that the American intelligence agencies couldn't possibly be incompetent enough to hit an embassy, even if that was their official story.
Sadly, the last eight years of both being totally unable to find some guy in a cave and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have convinced me that, yes, US intelligence can in fact be *that* incompetent.
Its nice to see in these cynical times that at least Israel's intelligence agencies are on the ball even if we disagree with their targets.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and an Israeli commando were captured by terrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that he would grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili."
The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili.
Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."
Katie Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."
The terror leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Couric dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."
The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. Israeli tough guy, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the a**," said the soldier.
"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the a**," insisted the Israeli.
So the leader shoved him into the open and kicked him in the a**.
The soldier went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistol from under his flak jacket, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he jumped to his knapsack, pulled out his carbine and sprayed the terrorists with gunfire.
In a flash, all terrorists were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the soldier was untying Rather and Couric, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them to kick you in the a** first?"
"What?" replied the Israeli, "and have you two a**holes report that I was the aggressor?"
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed; any negative press Israel has received is entirely down to media bias and has nothing whatsoever to do with the casualties, injuries and damage incurred in this offensive.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, btw, the rabbit died. No, that doesn't mean someone is pregnant, it means that the Jew Eating Rabbit of Palestinian National TV has gone to be with his 72 virgin bunnies.
You may or may not remember the charming children's programming on Palestinian National TV. First there was Farfour the Mouse, who was an obvious Micky Mouse ripoff. But Farfour was beaten to death by horrid Zionazis.
Farfour was replaced by his cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who seemed to be as anti-cat as he was anti-Jew.
So Nahoul died when the Jews wouldn't let him have access to medical care, and he was replaced by Assud, the Jew Eating Rabbit. Actually, Assud had quite the appetite. He wanted not only to eat the Jews, but the Danes. Tragically, the rabbit died in Operation Cast Lead. <sniff> We don't know who will be next. I'm guessing a puppy, but who knows?
Oh, and this is cute, too. A kid on Palestinian National TV kills a groveling George W. Bush and turns the White House into a mosque.
Meanwhile, our kids (and the kids in Israel) are stuck with boring old Sesame Street, where no one gets murdered or incites children to murder.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mystic, I'm pretty sure that there were not 400 children killed.
But I will say that your sarcasm is unappreciated. Despite your point of view, you should at least recognize the precarious moral position that the Israelis are in. Things are not that black and white.
The demonstration of the fact that children in Gaza are taught to hate Israelis is a factor in understanding that negotiations will not likely lead to peace. Coupled with the fact that Israel, like the world, is unsure how to relate to a populace that democratically elected a terrorist government, many are of the opinion that this operation, while terrible, was inevitable.
You may disagree, but I believe that the situation is murky enough for bitter sarcasm to be unwarranted.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The figure is based on the BBCs claim that there were 1300 fatalities of which nearly a third were children.
Read my previous posts in this thread. I am fully aware of the precariousness of the Israel's position, and I am sympathetic to it. And I think the major upshot of this conflict is a dramatic increase in Palestinian suffering with at best small increases in Israeli safety, hence my lack of enthusiasm for it.
As for the appropriateness of sarcasm, re-read Lisa's post, and tell me there is no sarcasm there.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I've looked at it again and it does attribute the figure to 'Palestinian Medical Services', so skepticism might well be warranted. The UN website, however, puts the figure at 412. My (very cursory) skimming of this article did not turn up their source.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's no surprise, really. But unfortunately, there are some people (hey there, Rabbit) who are so eager to buy into any anti-Israel propaganda that they keep forgetting that it almost always turns out to be the invention of sick minds.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Forgive my ignorance, but who, exactly, is "us"? If Israel, then I have to say that horrible word "Disproportionate"- and if not, that worse word "So?"
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength...
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MarkE: Forgive my ignorance, but who, exactly, is "us"? If Israel, then I have to say that horrible word "Disproportionate"- and if not, that worse word "So?"
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength... [/QB]
Hi Mark. Welcome to Hatrack!
A little bit of posting etiquette: It is polite to read-through the thread that you are posting in so that you can make an informed comment.
If you HAD read through, you'd see that the argument of proportion had been addressed a number of times.
My favorite was the Dershowitz article in the Wall Street Journal that was linked in this thread.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting.
Forgive my ignorance, but who, exactly, is "us"? If Israel, then I have to say that horrible word "Disproportionate"- and if not, that worse word "So?"
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength...
Mark:
(a) There were vocal Irish voices opposing what the IRA did. Whereas the Palestinians name schools and roads for suicide bombers and dance in the street when Jews are killed (not to mention dancing for joy after 9/11). There's no official Irish television that incites children to murder on a regular basis.
(b) The IRA had a number of goals, but none of them were to kick all the English out of England. If you've swallowed the hoke that the Palestinians just want Israel to leave Judea, Samaria and Gaza, you need to get out more.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength...
You're right about one thing. You certainly weren't morally superior. You were completely in the wrong. The British never had any business being in any part of Ireland. From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real problem started when the Normans invaded. The Angles and Saxons were oppressed in their own country! It's all the Normans fault. That never did get resolved - the Normans stayed in charge until the populations merged.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. Cro Magnans were innocently living noble, idealized lives before the evil Homo Sapiens showed up and ruined everything.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Cro Magnans were Homo sapiens. They were the ones who showed up and started ruining things for the fey.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, of course, there was that time the leprechauns showed up and drove the rock nymphs out of Ireland.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Hostages? Really? I can understand "occupied". I can understand "oppressed". What I can't understand is "hostages". It just doesn't seem to be the correct word.
Furthermore, the whole Irish thing is a poor analogy. The Jews were there before the Arabs. It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things. Jews came back to our own land.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Hostages? Really? I can understand "occupied". I can understand "oppressed". What I can't understand is "hostages". It just doesn't seem to be the correct word.
Furthermore, the whole Irish thing is a poor analogy. The Jews were there before the Arabs. It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things. Jews came back to our own land.
Even I find that argument weak. Though I wish they would, I don't think it's practical to expect the world to look back 2000 years through history for the precedent of Jewish residence in Israel.
I much prefer the argument the Western powers felt it a necessity in the wake of the holocaust that the Jews be given "back" their homeland.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, that argument is weak. It isn't like the land was unoccupied before the Jews showed up, and it isn't like no one has been there in the intervening 1000+ years. If it was okay for the Jews to take it the first time, it is certainly legitimate for someone else to take after.
The formation of Isreal was the umpteenth land grab of that place. I think Isreal certainly does exist, but that's why "right" to exist is problematic. It doesn't have anymore right to exist to exist than any other existing political body. That it does exist is a fact, but not a right.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Certainly not in anyones living memory and even debatable from an historical perspective. The Bible reports Jews fighting Canaanites and Philistines to take the land. Who are you to say that the Palestinians aren't descended from the people who were there even before Abraham.
quote:It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things.
How is it not like this? From all the history I've read from both sides, it is exactly like this. Up until around 1900, the area was occupied predominantly by Arabs and then Jews moved in and started taking things.
quote:Jews came back to our own land.
Certainly not in any living persons memory. You can't expect that after 2000 years you can come back to a place and say to the people who have been living there for hundreds of years, this is ours and expect them agree peacefully.
I know you believe God gave it to you "forever", but you can't really expect reasonable people who do not follow your religious beliefs to accept that as sufficient reason to surrender their property to you.
They see that property as the just fruits of their labors (or their parents and grandparents labors). They see you as usurpers of their rights. They aren't just irrational savages.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
