One Gaza Issue Resolved. Israel Not Targeting Women and Children.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Israeli targets INCLUDE women and children.

It is moot anyway. Avoiding innocent casualties is written in the International laws for rules of engagement. Israel has agreed to no such rules so there are no laws broken. These laws are adopted or written to help avoid the public protests and a sign that the nation is a legitimate, law abiding nation. Since Israel has no chance of ever being considered legitimate by the majority of the world, they really have nothing to lose. I don't know why they waste their time trying to convince the world they are just. They don't care either way.

Israel is a signer of the Geneva convention
en.wikipedia.org...

re Palistien - war and occupation
www.cjpmo.org...

ZION had every chance of being accepted by the world community
they blew all chance of that them selves...for all Jews too possibly not just them selves and their Christian and santanist cohorts
as they have everywhere they seen to have infiltrated in the last 2000 years
now, why is that everyone elses' fault I wonder?

originally posted by: Danbones

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Israeli targets INCLUDE women and children.

It is moot anyway. Avoiding innocent casualties is written in the International laws for rules of engagement. Israel has agreed to no such rules so there are no laws broken. These laws are adopted or written to help avoid the public protests and a sign that the nation is a legitimate, law abiding nation. Since Israel has no chance of ever being considered legitimate by the majority of the world, they really have nothing to lose. I don't know why they waste their time trying to convince the world they are just. They don't care either way.

Israel is a signer of the Geneva convention
en.wikipedia.org...

re Palistien - war and occupation
www.cjpmo.org...

ZION had every chance of being accepted by the world community
they blew all chance of that them selves...for all Jews too possibly not just them selves and their Christian and santanist cohorts
as they have everywhere they seen to have infiltrated in the last 2000 years
now, why is that everyone elses' fault I wonder?

Wow.. is that coming from bigotry? Or what?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
The only defence from pro-israel when I present this case is "what would you do" and "how would you like it."

This is ironic considering in another thread just the other day you refused to say that suicide bombers in buses and rocket attacks on civilians from Palestine were not unequivocally wrong, and further that we "could never judge what the Palestinians do till you, me and any Israeli went through what they have."

Link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: _Del_

The problem is, regardless of what their motivation is, wrong is wrong. Bad behavior does not and cannot justify further bad behavior.

"It's ok for me to kill this person, because this other guy killed 14 people." Doesn't work like that. Anytime someone pushes that philosophy they are pushing falsehood. Just because Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths does not mean a few deaths are ok...

Just because someone steal from me, does not make it ok for me to steal from someone else. Need I go on?

Malbosia seems to be trying to excuse what Hamas and others do, because of what Israel has done.

Well, I see that I have missed a lot. Maybe I should work backwards in replying. No, I won't try to hit all of them. Everybody who is saying Israel is immoral, so it deserves what it gets, or that it's understandable, please go back to one of the dozens of other threads that have that as a topic. Same for those who say I support Israel over Hamas. That's not the issue here.

a reply to: SuperFrog

That might be the case, if source article them selves didn't change. Check this post. Also points why some are more targeted, but nevertheless points that civilians ARE targeted, numbers show it all...Denial much, are we??

I trust you will note that you are not pointing out that the source article has changed. It hasn't. The BBC did not provide the source for either of my two sources. You're attacking a source I didn't use. Go ahead and do that all day if you care to, it has no bearing on this thread.

The article you point to only offers possibilities to be considered. If you want some odd possibilities to consider, they're going cheaply in the UFO and Paranormal threads.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't know what still needs to be debated here. The OP is trying to statistical data to prove intent.

And being pretty darn successful at it, if you don't mind my crowing a bit. Israel has hit buildings and open spaces. As Hamas saw fit to build cross border tunnels instead of shelters, everyone in the country is a theoretical victim. If Israel didn't care where it's shells went, the male vs. female casualty percentages would be about 50 - 50. Actually the ratio is closer to 3 - 1.

Children under 14 make up 45% of Gaza's population. Again, if Israel fired indiscriminately, the deaths for adults vs. children would be 55 - 45. What is it in fact? 88 - 12.

Israel's only defence has been that Hamas is using civilians as human shields.

Defense for what? That civilians are dying in strikes on military targets, after being told to run for it? Israel doesn't need a defense for that.

By Israel's own admission, they are including civilians in their targets. Charles use of stats is nothing but obfuscation from the fact that Israel has no concern for the safety of Gaza civilians since Israel knew they were there and fired anyway.

It seems you have that backwards. The stats show that Israel is concerned for the safety of Gazan civilians.

The only defence from pro-israel when I present this case is "what would you do" and "how would you like it." They simply cannot deny that Israel is attacking with complete disregard for the lives of those that ARE NOT firing rockets.

Again, the facts show that Israel is not attacking in the manner you claim.

STOP THE PRESSES!

I just realized something. Why is it that Israel is getting all of the international attention and bad press? Besides the fact that they're Jewish and that stirs up a lot of hatred by itself?

Look nearly anywhere in the world: Cyprus; several countries in Africa; Dearborn, Michigan; parts of France, Germany, England, The Netherlands; the list is lengthy.

In each case, a number of Muslims move into an area of the country and continue to immigrate and have children until there is a majority, or substantial minority, in that one area. It is then announced that Sharia, in one form or another will be enforced in that area and the police are not welcome. That area continues to grow with new immigrants until they gain political or military power. Eventually they gain control of the nation or a recognized part of it.

Israel is hated and reviled because they are the only country to have said, "You cannot have our land, you cannot kill our citizens if they refuse to convert, you can not drive us into exile as ISIL and other groups are doing in several countries. If you try it, we will defend ourselves militarily. We have the weapons and the will to smash you flat, so leave us alone."

They hate Israel because it's the one standing up to the bully, and the world is ashamed that they haven't the nerve to do it themselves.

a reply to: charles1952

They hate Israel because it's the one standing up to the bully, and the world is ashamed that they haven't the nerve to do it themselves.

Just want to get this straight. Israel (the victim) is standing up to Palestine (the bully) and now the world hates Israel because they (the world) didn't have the guts to attack Palestine. Have I got that right?

A general response.

It's interesting to see how the thread has gone from "Israel targets women and children," to "Israel targets civilians," to "Israel doesn't do everything possible to avoid killing civilians." It may be that passions are running high, but the thinking is not as cool and dispassionate as we might wish.

I have heard that Israel has pulled back on some raids because of the civilian question. I don't know if it's true, but it's interesting.

On "truth," I have been accused several times of posting information which is just Israeli propaganda. The New York Times is an Israeli mouthpiece? Or is it that anybody who says anything which doesn't criticize Israel is an Israeli mouthpiece?" You can ignore a lot of information that way. And what sources of truth are being presented as neutral? The Huffington Post which has never been neutral, and Breaking the Silence, a group of anti-war vets. You can look at the source, but first, determine the truth of the message.

Air strikes are pretty accurate. Israeli artillery can't land dead center on a fly, but it can do considerable damage to the mess tent it is visiting. Hamas rockets get to Israel about 95% of the time, somewhere in Israel, nobody is sure which way it went. The other 5% of the time, Hamas sends flowers to the Gazan victim accidentally obliterated.

The point of that paragraph is that if there is a demand that both sides do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, then Hamas should stop firing its basically uncontrollable rockets. That would have the additional benefit of making peace possible.

So, if Hamas is concerned about civilian lives and desirous of peace. It should agree to stop firing rockets immediately. It won't though, because civilian lives and peace are pretty low on their "to do" list.

So many of the comments have been "Israel is on illegally gained land," or "Israel is denying the basic human rights of the Gazans." One, that's off-topic, and two, we know where discussions which consist of "Israel is bad. No, Israel is good," end up.

No I'm not trying to justify Israel. I'm surprised that you didn't catch on in the first three or four pages. I'm simply showing that a common charge against Israel appears indefensible, statistically.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Dear Flatcoat,

No, you don't have that right. Anything else I can do for you?

Oh, I'll bet you want an explanation.

The force that I was referring to as a "bully" was international Islam. I thought you would have seen that in my references to France, the UK, etc. I'm surprised that you thought I was saying that Gaza is bullying France.

At this moment, Palestine is the only group taking military action against Israel. You know that hasn't always been the case. Is Hamas doing it because they're the crazy ones? Perhaps it's because no Muslim country feels it has the strength to go after Israel yet? I don't know. Whatever the reason, Israel has told Muslims from the day of their founding, "No, you can't destroy us, you can't drive us away. If you attack, you'll pay dearly for it." Which the Muslim countries appear to have finally learned.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I don't know what still needs to be debated here. The OP is trying to statistical data to prove intent.

And the point that the OP is trying to make ("Isreal is not targeting women & children" cannot be either proven or disproved based on causuality numbers. The point speaks to 'intent'. Not only that but he is trying to prove a negative which can be disproved by showing only one example of the opposite.

I.E.

There are no white cows.

One white cow - disproves the statement.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

And the point that the OP is trying to make ("Isreal is not targeting women & children" cannot be either proven or disproved based on causuality numbers. The point speaks to 'intent'. Not only that but he is trying to prove a negative which can be disproved by showing only one example of the opposite.

I've rigged a coin to show heads when flipped, much more often than tails. I place it in my pocket, only to realize that I have an identical, un-rigged coin in that pocket as well. So determine which is the coin rigged to give heads, I take one out of my pocket and flip it 100 times. I count 25 heads and 75 tails. Is this the coin rigged to give heads? Of course not. In fact, it looks like a coin which has been rigged to give tails. I get the same results after flipping it 2000 times. I'm convinced it's not the coin rigged to give heads, why aren't you?

Not only that but he is trying to prove a negative which can be disproved by showing only one example of the opposite.

Actually, that's not what I'm trying to do, and it seems that you misunderstand my conclusion.

The first "salvo" in this war of logic was fired by those claiming that Israel was making special efforts to find and kill women and children. (What else can targeting mean?) My response was that the claim can't be true, because whatever people want to claim Israel's intent is, the numbers show that far, far fewer women and children were killed than if Israel was firing without targeting anyone in particular. The claim is shown to be false, especially since no one has rebutted the numbers or logic.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

In each case, a number of Muslims move into an area of the country and continue to immigrate and have children until there is a majority, or substantial minority, in that one area. It is then announced that Sharia, in one form or another will be enforced in that area and the police are not welcome. That area continues to grow with new immigrants until they gain political or military power. Eventually they gain control of the nation or a recognized part of it.

Ah, so you were just referring to Muslims in general. And Israel is protecting the world from this evil, breeding plague. Thanks, that does clear things up.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Dear Flatcoat,

I agree that sometimes my writing is not understandable, but either I have hit a new low, or you are trying to find a way to claim I am saying things which I didn't.

Israel has no intention of saving the world, and I never came close to suggesting it. I have said that they will use serious force to protect it's people, it's land, and it's recognition as a state.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I have said that they will use serious force to protect it's people, it's land, and it's recognition as a state.

This may be so, but I'd say one thing your statistics do prove is that the Palestinians are in much greater need of protection than the Israelis.

.
.
.
.

Stand Back

.
.
.

and reflect...

.
.
.

Are there any point in debating when the innocent civilian kept getting killed by 'unintentional' or 'accidental or 'errant' ordnances fired by both sides ?

and this goes for both sides, why the hawks from each side clamoring for justification of their attack while knowingly accept the fact that their attacks will result in innocent civilians getting caught in the midde..

.
.
.

originally posted by: charles1952

And being pretty darn successful at it, if you don't mind my crowing a bit. Israel has hit buildings and open spaces. As Hamas saw fit to build cross border tunnels instead of shelters, everyone in the country is a theoretical victim. If Israel didn't care where it's shells went, the male vs. female casualty percentages would be about 50 - 50. Actually the ratio is closer to 3 - 1.

You can ignore my position by saying it is off topic. On your topic, you are correct and I have even stated in past post that I don't believe that Israel is specifically targeting women and children. That does not excuse the fact that they women and children were factored before they were attacked.

Defense for what? That civilians are dying in strikes on military targets, after being told to run for it? Israel doesn't need a defense for that.

And it comes down to this. To answer to your statement..
Says who?

It seems you have that backwards. The stats show that Israel is concerned for the safety of Gazan civilians.

Cherry picked stats to illustrate a mission objective. Hmm, where have I seen that before?

Again, the facts show that Israel is not attacking in the manner you claim.

Yes it is. What is it that I claim? I am confused. We are talking about 2 different angles and you are using the answer to yours... to answer mine. What are you trying to pull here?

a reply to: bbracken677

I am pretty sure you have seen the videos of Hamas firing rockets from next to a school and next to a hospital.

Yes, and yet, IDF killed more civilians than Hamas in doing so. Ineptitude at its finest or callousness can only be the cause of such atrocity.

I am not privy to the IDF's targeting practices, but one would expect that they would target the area the launched missiles were fired from and return fire to that same location. That would be targeting Hamas, no?

No. Levelling 3 square miles and indiscriminately killing and maiming anyone in that vicinity hardly describes targeting. The video in my previous comment to you displays a perfect example of targeting....CHILDREN.

The statistics, based on the OP's analysis show that women and children are not targeted or the numbers would be higher. If you wish to argue that point, then just use the numbers and debunk the conclusions.

I personally don't care if they are targeting women and children. The fact remains they are targeting innocent civilians and if that were not true the numbers would be lower. This is what I care to discuss. Let's discuss those numbers instead pushing back the goal post as a way of cushioning the hard cold fact that a disproportionate amount of civilians are being slaughtered.

Btw, you never shared any thoughts on the video link showing IDF sniper targeting two young teens (children). Interesting how you want to push back the goal post and discuss numbers in an article but refuse to discuss a video that speaks volumes. Your entire response to me centred around theme of targeting. So let's do....

Here's the video link again showing two young teens being executed .

www.theguardian.com...

Thoughts?

originally posted by: bbracken677

Malbosia seems to be trying to excuse what Hamas and others do, because of what Israel has done.

Sure buddy. What I am not trying to do, is sit silently while a population of people get tormented and bullied off their own property.

a reply to: Involutionist

Yes, and yet, IDF killed more civilians than Hamas in doing so. Ineptitude at its finest or callousness can only be the cause of such atrocity.

And, as I posted a couple of times before, but nobody answers the question: Should Israel allow Hamas to fire these missiles into Israel with impunity?

You still have not addressed the stats, except for merely stating that if they (Israel) were not targeting women and children the numbers would be lower. Address the numbers from the OP in light of the question above and the fact that Hamas is firing their missiles from schools and hospitals, or next to them.

The fact is, war is hell and civilians die. Funny how the US and Israel are the only countries/people that are held responsible for civilian deaths. Everyone else who kills civilians are given a virtual pass.

Has there been an uproar at anytime when Hamas killed civilians? What about Hezbollah? What about Syria? What about any nation in the Middle East? What about any nation in Africa? What about any other nation in the world?

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer there not be war. I would prefer there not be crime, greed, murder, etc etc. I grew up during the peace/love movement... Not only have we not lived up to our potential, but it seems we have gotten worse. I went to a candle light vigil the night Lennon was killed (or was it the next night). There was a time I believed we could give peace a chance.

I no longer believe that.