News Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

[AhmedEzz]

Civilian casualties is something else Evo, it is 100% something else. If "un-intentionally" and after making its preparations to avoid civilian deaths, some not a lot but some civilian casualties happened then Israel should make a statement that innocent blood was shed "accidentally" while targeting Hamas. Sorry Evo but this is not the case

I think they took care of the statement part

 

[Evo]

I think they took care of the statement part

You want Israel to apologize each time a civilian is accidently hit?

 

[AhmedEzz]

how did you infer that from my response?

I was clear, they took care of the "issuing a statement part" while neglecting the "un-intentionally" and "after making its preparations to avoid civilian deaths" and " some not a lot but some civilian casualties" part which I strongly and firmly stress

 

[drankin]

You want Israel to apologize each time a civilian is accidently hit?

Hamas is certainly NOT apologizing when they kill Isreali civilians. It's a bit of a double standard isn't it?

Once upon a time, an entire civilian cities would be destroyed. The US has done it a few times. Ending a cease-fire ensures a continuation of deaths among all involved.

Why did Hamas not continue the cease-fire? This wouldn't be happening.

 

[Evo]

how did you infer that from my response?

I was clear, they took care of the "issuing a statement part" while neglecting the "un-intentionally" and "after making its preparations to avoid civilian deaths" and " some not a lot but some civilian casualties" part which I strongly and firmly stress

You also said

Israel should make a statement that innocent blood was shed "accidentally" while targeting Hamas.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You also said
Originally Posted by AhmedEzz View Post

Israel should make a statement that innocent blood was shed "accidentally" while targeting Hamas.

Where I then made fun of that by saying that they did "Israel should make a statement" rather than firstly doing the the "un-intentionally" and "making its preparations to avoid civilian deaths" and "ome not a lot but some civilian casualties" part...!

Hamas is certainly NOT apologizing when they kill Isreali civilians. It's a bit of a double standard isn't it?

My friend Hamas is a terrorist organization with its own foreign agenda, it has naught to do with Palestinian resistance.

Why did Hamas not continue the cease-fire? This wouldn't be happening.

Hamas provoked Israel and wanted that response. Israel is NOT punishing Hamas here, the punished here is the civilians.

 

[drankin]

Hamas provoked Israel and wanted that response. Israel is NOT punishing Hamas here, the punished here is the civilians.

Ok, granted, if Hamas is hiding out among the civilian population, civilians are going to be affected. But Isreal is intentionally not occupying Gaza (if I'm following developements correctly), they are only doing remote strikes. The civilians that are being "punished" are in the vacinity of the Hamas, intentionaly among and/or supporting Hamas. If I were in close vacinity of terrorists/thugs/gangs/people bent on killiing, I would move. Especially if military action was going to begin.

And Isreal is punishing Hamas, I've seen a few recent pictures of Hamas militants killed by the strikes.

 

[jreelawg]

Yes, it is
I fail to see the point of your last sentence unless your implying some sort of anti-semitic remarks.

Both sides are semites.

 

[rootX]

I was thinking if the rockets were really fired by Hamas?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/12/29/world.protests.gaza/#cnnSTCOther1
And, if Israel or world leaders pressured Hamas to capture those who fired rockets? I couldn't find any source about that.

I think it has more to do with Israel's coming elections.

 

[AhmedEzz]

And Isreal is punishing Hamas, I've seen a few recent pictures of Hamas militants killed by the strikes.

For the sake of argument let's not get this down to the "I saw a few pictures of dead combatants" level. I saw a few pictures of dead children, students, women, old men and destruction of all kind by the way.

The civilians that are being "punished" are in the vacinity of the Hamas, intentionaly among and/or supporting Hamas. If I were in close vacinity of terrorists/thugs/gangs/people bent on killiing, I would move.

This is not a normal circumstance where you can easily "move" to another neighborhood away from the "bad thugs" of Hamas. Hamas took control of all Gaza. There's not getting away from them.

 

[jreelawg]

yes … the pattern is that one side calls the other side terrorists.

Hamas does not fit this pattern … Canada, the European Union, Japan, the USA, and Jordan, call Hamas terrorists, and Hamas is not their enemy!

And you haven't answered …

are you denying that Hamas are terrorists?​

Also, many Islamic states label Israel a terrorist state.

I personally think that the word terrorism takes accuracy out of the equation when it is used so generally. I think specific actions, crimes, military operations etc, should be considered what they are. Terror is terror.:

"terror |ˈterər|
noun
1 extreme fear : people fled in terror | [in sing. ] a terror of darkness.
• the use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons : weapons of terror.
• [in sing. ] a person or thing that causes extreme fear : his unyielding scowl became the terror of the Chicago mob.
• ( the Terror) the period of the French Revolution between mid 1793 and July 1794 when the ruling Jacobin faction, dominated by Robespierre, ruthlessly executed anyone considered a threat to their regime. Also called reign of terror .
2 (also holy terror) informal a person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance : placid and obedient in their parents' presence, but holy terrors when left alone."

Both sides are using terror, and it doesn't seam to be working.

Although Hamas can't possibly believe that killing one or two Israelis with a lucky lob is going to terrify Israel. I think they are provoking attacks to bring attention to the situation in hopes of turning people against Israel.

 

[drankin]

For the sake of argument let's not get this down to the "I saw a few pictures of dead combatants" level. I saw a few pictures of dead children, students, women, old men and destruction of all kind by the way.



This is not a normal circumstance where you can easily "move" to another neighborhood away from the "bad thugs" of Hamas. Hamas took control of all Gaza. There's not getting away from them.

So do you agree that Hamas should be removed from the population?

 

[AhmedEzz]

So do you agree that Hamas should be removed from the population?

I don't know why you make me repeat myself several times but once more : YES!

-although you could easily deduce that if you read my previous posts-

 

[drankin]

I don't know why you make me repeat myself several times but once more : YES!

-although you could easily deduce that if you read my previous posts-

Ok, how do you suggest that Isreal remove Hamas?

 

[AhmedEzz]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

 

[jreelawg]

Ok, how do you suggest that Isreal remove Hamas?

I heard someone make a good point about this earlier. That is, Hamas is indirectly a creation of Israel's doings. Now, maybe that was some time ago, and what was wrong was wrong, and what done is done. There will be no "fair court" to be held. But it was violence, occupation, invasion, and oppression that led to the radicalization that we see. More killing destruction and invasion will only create more radicalization. The more desperate a people become, the more radical.

You can't just kill all the radicals. Playing the game where you say stop being radical or we will starve you and bomb you won't work, that only brings more desperation, and therefore more radicalization. As you get further down this path of increased radicalization, and desperation, what is the eventual outcome, the only way and end would come out of this path is removal.

 

[Cyrus]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

Ahmed, what fantasy world do you live in? Should they use their magic ray gun from space that will ONLY kill Hamas bad guys?

I'm sorry, but your post is naive.

 

[OAQfirst]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

The U.S. had "military generals and unlimited access to US technologies" when Iraq was invaded. Countless civilian deaths. So, exactly how is that an option for limiting civilian casualties when dealing with Hamas? What do military generals and US technologies have to offer in this goal?

 

[rootX]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

Only if US/Israel could back some organization that's against Hamas (Fatah?). That would solve all the problems with least civilian casualties :)

 

[devil-fire]

You can't just kill all the radicals. Playing the game where you say stop being radical or we will starve you and bomb you won't work, that only brings more desperation, and therefore more radicalization. As you get further down this path of increased radicalization, and desperation, what is the eventual outcome, the only way and end would come out of this path is removal.

I think this is vary true. I think Israel is putting Gaza under extream conditions because of how the people in Gaza react to extreme conditions.

 

[AhmedEzz]

The U.S. had "military generals and unlimited access to US technologies" when Iraq was invaded. Countless civilian deaths. So, exactly how is that an option for limiting civilian casualties when dealing with Hamas? What do military generals and US technologies have to offer in this goal?

So precision bombing and accurate strikes are not an option now? And even if such accurate targeting of Hamas is not viable,this does not by any way forfeit the blood of the innocent.

Your arguments are inhumane and cruel and I would like to see them forced upon you so that you would show some respect and consideration to the lives of people rather than blindingly defending Israel regardless of what's going on.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I think this is vary true. I think Israel is putting Gaza under extream conditions because of how the people in Gaza react to extreme conditions.

I don't understand the logic

 

[tiny-tim]

re-defining words …

Both sides are semites.

Please … this is an argument of anti-semitic racists who, when accused of anti-semitism, re-define it to include all "descendants of Shem", thereby including the Ishmaelites who of course are the modern Arabs, so that they can say "Well, I'm certainly not anti-Arab, so by definition I can't be anti-semitic".

"Anti-semitism" is like "gauge" theory, "thing", "husband", and thousands of other English words whose meanings have adapted.

To say "both sides are semites" (meaning both Arabs and Jews) is to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism.

(as, incidentally, the United Nations General Assembly did until recently by refusing to include anti-semitism in its annual list of “contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination”)

… and now you're also doing it with "terrorist" … suggesting that anything involving terror is terrorism …

thereby effectively excusing (by comparison) anything which is ordinarily called terrorism …

… I personally think that the word terrorism takes accuracy out of the equation when it is used so generally. I think specific actions, crimes, military operations etc, should be considered what they are. Terror is terror.:

"terror |ˈterər|
noun
1 extreme fear : people fled in terror | [in sing. ] a terror of darkness.
• the use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons : weapons of terror.
• [in sing. ] a person or thing that causes extreme fear : his unyielding scowl became the terror of the Chicago mob.
• ( the Terror) the period of the French Revolution between mid 1793 and July 1794 when the ruling Jacobin faction, dominated by Robespierre, ruthlessly executed anyone considered a threat to their regime. Also called reign of terror .
2 (also holy terror) informal a person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance : placid and obedient in their parents' presence, but holy terrors when left alone."

Both sides are using terror, and it doesn't seam to be working.

Terrorism, in ordinary English usage, is not "anything involving terror" …

it is ordinarily used to describe military or quasi-military action which serves no military purpose (and therefore achieves nothing but causing terror) …

such as bombing of restaurants markets and buses, and shelling of purely civilian targets.

 

[OAQfirst]

So precision bombing and accurate strikes are not an option now? And even if such accurate targeting of Hamas is not viable,this does not by any way forfeit the blood of the innocent.

Your arguments are inhumane and cruel and I would like to see them forced upon you so that you would show some respect and consideration to the lives of people rather than blindingly defending Israel regardless of what's going on.

Yeesh, I was asking a question this time, not making a point! Chill.

 

[jreelawg]

Please … this is an argument of anti-semitic racists who, when accused of anti-semitism, re-define it to include all "descendants of Shem", thereby including the Ishmaelites who of course are the modern Arabs, so that they can say "Well, I'm certainly not anti-Arab, so by definition I can't be anti-semitic".

"Anti-semitism" is like "gauge" theory, "thing", "husband", and thousands of other English words whose meanings have adapted.

To say "both sides are semites" (meaning both Arabs and Jews) is to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism.

(as, incidentally, the United Nations General Assembly did until recently by refusing to include anti-semitism in its annual list of “contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination”)

… and now you're also doing it with "terrorist" … suggesting that anything involving terror is terrorism …

thereby effectively excusing (by comparison) anything which is ordinarily called terrorism …Terrorism, in ordinary English usage, is not "anything involving terror" …

it is ordinarily used to describe military or quasi-military action which serves no military purpose (and therefore achieves nothing but causing terror) …

such as bombing of restaurants markets and buses, and shelling of purely civilian targets.

from the apple dictionary:

"Semite |ˈsemīt|
noun
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
ORIGIN from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem,’ son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended."

Maybe the usage of the term anti-semitic usually refers to Jews, but it is still incorrect usage of the word. It is kind of like calling Native Americans, Indians. Never the less, I was just pointing out the irony of it. I also find it funny that people still can't tell the difference between Native American and Indian.

The terrorism thing, seriously, who is it that gets to define the word terrorism if the word is not to be intended to mean what it is defined as in the dictionary:

"terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Then what is it's use? I suppose it has another term in some legal document determining who can be abducted and tortured, but can we not use the classical definition?

If you want to dispute these facts, then take it up with the authors of dictionaries.

 

[tiny-tim]

re-defining words …

You're still doing it …

insisting on a general definition of "semite" so as to help deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism …

from the apple dictionary:

"Semite |ˈsemīt|
noun
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
ORIGIN from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem,’ son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended."​

Maybe the usage of the term anti-semitic usually refers to Jews, but it is still incorrect usage of the word.

I don't have access to the apple dictionary, but I can quote both from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antisemitism" …

antisemitism - the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people

and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism" …

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also rarely known as judeophobia) is prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.[

You have deliberately avoided quoting any dictionary on "antisemitism" … presumably because you know that it only applies to Jews.

Never the less, I was just pointing out the irony of it.

No, you weren't … you were trying to dispute the meaning of "anti-semitic" …

nobody used the word "semite" until you did …

I fail to see the point of your last sentence unless your implying some sort of anti-semitic remarks.

Both sides are semites.

… what is ironic about using the word "anti-semitic"?

 

[russ_watters]

Attempting to re-define words does not change the wrongness of the actions. If you don't like the word "antisemetic", fine: the statement was just 'racist against Jews'. If you don't like the word "terrorism", fine: Hamas is a merely a criminal organization that purposely attacks civilians and attempts the eradication of an entire group of people*, both crimes against humanity.

There is a reason that many of the major powers in the world consider Hamas to be a criminal organization and an illegitimate government. They really are in the same class as the Taliban and giving them the same treatment would be perfectly appropriate.

Arguing against definitions is a really pathetic debate tactic.

*Just to be safe, I'll avoid using "genocidal" too.

 

[Astronuc]

I have an idea - stop fighting.

Be nice.

Tikkun olam.

 

[russ_watters]

Civilian casualties is something else Evo, it is 100% something else. If "un-intentionally" and after making its preparations to avoid civilian deaths, some not a lot but some civilian casualties happened then Israel should make a statement that innocent blood was shed "accidentally" while targeting Hamas. Sorry Evo but this is not the case

Two things:

1. According to the most recent news, the ratio in the death toll is more than 3:1, militants to civilians. That's pretty good considering that Hamas makes a conscious effort to put it's civilians at risk.

Most of those killed in three days of airstrikes have been Hamas members, but the U.N. agency in charge of Palestinian refugees said at least 51 of the dead were civilians. A rise in civilian casualties could intensify international pressure on Israel to abort the offensive.

A Hamas police spokesman, Ehab Ghussen, said 180 members of the Hamas security forces were among the total number of dead.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-12-29-israel-palestinians-monday_N.htm

2. This didn't get a lot of press, but before the attacks started three days ago, Israel sent out thousands of cell phone text messages warning people to stay away from Hamas members/hideouts/facilities. A modern version of leaflets designed to warn civilians to get out in order to help minimize civlian casualties. Israel didn't have to do that and it reduces the effectiveness of the air raids.

RESIDENTS at certain addresses in the Gaza Strip have been receiving unusual phone calls since the Israeli air assault began on Saturday -- a request that they and their families leave their homes as soon as possible for their own safety.

More unusual than the recorded message is the Arabic-speaking caller, who identifies himself as being from the Israeli defence forces.

Dipping into their bag of tricks for the updated Gaza telephone numbers, Israel's intelligence services are warning Palestinian civilians in Gaza living close to Hamas facilities that they may be hurt unless they distance themselves from those targets.

In some cases, the warning comes not by telephone but from leaflets dropped from aircraft on selected districts.

Such warnings clearly eliminate the element of surprise, butfor Israel it is of cardinal importance to minimise civilian casualties, and not just for humanitarian reasons.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24853989-15084,00.html

Israel isn't stupid. They recognize the propaganda factor in high civilian casualties (for that matter, so does Hamas...), and they are bending over backwards, doing far more than is really necessary, to avoid them. Why you think an additional message stating what is already obvious is necessary, is beyond me. Could you explain further?

 

[russ_watters]

I have an idea - stop fighting.

Be nice.

Tikkun olam.

Great idea. Take it to Hamas and see how it's received!