"Children playing on the roofs of buildings"
Hmm... Like in this video?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hamas-Human-Shield-Confession
Sounds like another case of Hamas compelling civilians to mass on top of known high-value targets.

Nothing is as it seems when poured from the Pallywood propaganda machine (which unfortunately Doctor Mads seems to have become a party to).

Here's the deal on this guy who seems to be everywhere these days (Mads Gilbert):

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1580

Irishman, I noticed earlier that Al-Jazeera also uses the phrasing "War on Gaza".

Could you elucidate why you've chosen this preposition as well?

Gaza is a proper noun like Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

I've never heard the "The war on Iraq", "The war on Vietnam", "The war on Afghanistan".

Is Al-Jazeera re-educating an Irishman in English now, as well?

>> ^Pprt:
Here's the deal on this guy who seems to be everywhere these days (Mads Gilbert):


Thanks Pprt, his frothing makes more sense now in that context. Maybe he will take time out from his hectic schedule of intervues to perform some lifesaving surgery. That would be news!

You're using CAMERA as a credible source? You do know that they have a heavy Pro-Israel bias.

every time facts come up, you guys shout bias, defending yourself from reality

>> ^Pprt:
Irishman, I noticed earlier that Al-Jazeera also uses the phrasing "War on Gaza".
Could you elucidate why you've chosen this preposition as well?
Gaza is a proper noun like Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
I've never heard the "The war on Iraq", "The war on Vietnam", "The war on Afghanistan".
Is Al-Jazeera re-educating an Irishman in English now, as well?


Yeah, you're right-- that kind of phrasing is too direct and honest to be stomached, eh? To me, it's pretty apparent that this is FULLY a war ON Gaza, a decades long war ON Palestinians. Bully can only play victim in the playground for so long... I hope the other kids jump in sooner than later.

>> ^kulpims:
every time facts come up, you guys shout bias, defending yourself from reality


I hadn't heard of CAMERA before, so I was curious if they really were neutral, as they say in their org description.

Then I saw this:

http://blog.camera.org/

Virtually every post is not just pro-Israel, but anti Hamas. I'm sorry, but that pretty much invalidates them as a trustworthy source. Any reasonable person would agree that neither side is blameless.

Virtually every post is not just pro-Israel, but anti Hamas.


I'm not familiar with camera either, so I'm inclined to believe it is biased towards Israel. I'd just point out you have your emphasis wrong. A media source with only pro-Israel posts I wouldn't trust. A media source with only anti-Hamas posts though I would have fewer problems with. Until Hamas comes out and does something positive they deserve every condemnation they receive.

And for the millionth time, yes condemn Israel for civilian casualties, but for the love of humanity don't abdicate Hamas of responsibility for it as well. The world needs to condemn BOTH the ones using human shields AND the ones firing at them anyways.

I've been wracking my brain for the last few days about something which is hard to articulate, but I think I finally have a better idea about:

I just don't understand the logic of "rules" for war. I definitely understand that killing innocent people is "bad," but if you just back up a second, in a situation where War, which is pretty much one country telling another country "I am going to kill you", is declared, what sense does it make that they have to suddenly play by some rules?

Over the last couple of days I've been seeing things which make both sides look bad. Israel attacking civilian targets and Hamas making those civilian targets viable by putting military people in them... ultimately isn't the real solution about avoiding the conflict itself?

It seems to me that once you've introduced killing people as a solution to a problem it really doesn't make much of a difference which people you start killing because eventually a losing side is going to resort to the dirtiest thing they can in order to try to stop you.

I think back to old-school war, where the generals or whatever agreed on a time and place and basically lined up and attacked... even in ancient times, you eventually run into situations like the trojan horse where someone says "hey, fuck the rules; if we just jump the gun and catch them with their pants down, we'll win and isn't that the point?"

Mind you, this is all about the conflict itself. The bigger question which seems much harder to answer is why can't these two groups come to an agreement. I hate to say it, but I'm gonna have to throw religion under the bus with this one and say that it is probably the cause of most of the issues which are pretty much unresolvable.

As long as the Palestinian combatants will hide amongst the Palestinian civilians, there will be civilians. Gunmen grab children off the street and use them as shields to cross from one location to another without drawing Israeli fire. It's inevitable that there will be civilian casualties.

So, as long as Hammas is doing the fighting, the Palestinian civilians will do the dying.

Chicken Hawks

>> ^volumptuous:
Chicken Hawks


No, that goes to Clinton for his refusal to stop the Genocide in Rwanda for fear that American soldiers might die like they did in Somalia.

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^volumptuous:
Chicken Hawks

No, that goes to Clinton for his refusal to stop the Genocide in Rwanda for fear that American soldiers might die like they did in Somalia.


Actually, it applies to people like you who cheer on the slaughter of innocent people, but never put your own neck on the line.

see:QM

And if you'd like to talk about Rwanda, see John McCain 1993:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^volumptuous:
Chicken Hawks

No, that goes to Clinton for his refusal to stop the Genocide in Rwanda for fear that American soldiers might die like they did in Somalia.

Actually, it applies to people like you who cheer on the slaughter of innocent people, but never put your own neck on the line.
see:QM


Yeah, I really was cheering for more blood with my post:

And for the millionth time, yes condemn Israel for civilian casualties, but for the love of humanity don't abdicate Hamas of responsibility for it as well. The world needs to condemn BOTH the ones using human shields AND the ones firing at them anyways.


If you want to defend Hamas by laying all casualties on Israel alone you are still defending half the killers and the shame is yours.

^ meh.

It's pointless discussing this with you, QM, or mharvey. Similar to debating torture with a Bush enabler.

Can anyone give me a single good reason that the Israelis would target civilians? They are doing nothing but engendering hatred in the world community.

The only thing I can think of is that they are sick of Hamas using human shields, and they are finally saying "No, that won't help you anymore. We will kill your human shield to get to you because we are sick of your shit."

Could there be any other reason?