Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Who said it's on purpose. I just look at the amount of injured and killed civilians ... Either Israeli people all walk in Mk VII suits ... or either it's more life threatening in Palestine territory.
Every civillian that dies is 1 to much, the only problem is here that the Palestanians terrorist dont ware army suits but hide between normal people. So it's hard to say how many of those innocents were really innocent!
Palestanian terrorists? You mean Hamas soldiers, democratically choosen to rule Gaza but not authorized to have a legal army of their own to defend themselves and/or fight for their rights? Another example: when North Korean soldiers shoot at South Korea they also become terrorists all of the sudden, or are they soldiers fighting an ungoing war over territory (without looking at the right or wrong of the shooting but only the definition of 'terrorists')?
Besides, the resistance in WW2 were terrorists to the nazi's, but they fought for their country and many lost their lives by doing so and we honor them for what they have done during that occupation. So all depends from which side you look at the situation and how you call the fighting sides.
And another question: you condemn palestinian militant groups for firing rockets at residential areas but when it happens the other way around, israeli shooting at much more dense residential areas killing many many more innocent people, it's acceptable or at least understandable? To me that doesn't really match your comment 'Every civillian that dies is 1 to much'.
(edited)
Besides, the resistance in WW2 were terrorists to the nazi's, but they fought for their country and many lost their lives by doing so and we honor them for what they have done during that occupation. So all depends from which side you look at the situation and how you call the fighting sides.
And another question: you condemn palestinian militant groups for firing rockets at residential areas but when it happens the other way around, israeli shooting at much more dense residential areas killing many many more innocent people, it's acceptable or at least understandable? To me that doesn't really match your comment 'Every civillian that dies is 1 to much'.
(edited)
Killing innocent people is never ok. The situation is very complex. About Hamas we can agree that they are a terrorist organisation right ? Look at the west bank were Fatah is the boss right now, isnt it right that the violence is much less there right now ? Because they choose a way that was more humane for both sides. I would like an Israeli or somebody else to tell more about the difference between Fatah/westbank and Hamas/gaza.
I'm not defending Israel or Palestina here, they are both wrong in many different ways, war isnt nice war is ugly as hell for both parties involved.
Civilians(both israeli's and palestanians) are the victims here, people live in fear every day on both sides only because both sides aperently like for the violence to keep on going.
I'm not defending Israel or Palestina here, they are both wrong in many different ways, war isnt nice war is ugly as hell for both parties involved.
Civilians(both israeli's and palestanians) are the victims here, people live in fear every day on both sides only because both sides aperently like for the violence to keep on going.
Who said it's on purpose. I just look at the amount of injured and killed civilians ...
That's not right. Like I said:
- there is a moral difference between killing civilians on purpose and attacking military targets with civilian deaths as collateral damage;
- Israel has a far better army and defense system, with the result of far less Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths, even with the same amount of rockets (which is unequal); and
- there is a moral difference between shooting a rocket as an answer to foreign aggressiveness and starting a war by shooting first.
That's not right. Like I said:
- there is a moral difference between killing civilians on purpose and attacking military targets with civilian deaths as collateral damage;
- Israel has a far better army and defense system, with the result of far less Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths, even with the same amount of rockets (which is unequal); and
- there is a moral difference between shooting a rocket as an answer to foreign aggressiveness and starting a war by shooting first.
there is a moral difference between killing civilians on purpose and attacking military targets with civilian deaths as collateral damage;
I strongly disagree.
The only moral difference I see is between firing and not firing.
there is a moral difference between shooting a rocket as an answer to foreign aggressiveness and starting a war by shooting first.
I strongly disagree.
The only moral difference I see is between firing and not firing.
(edited)
I strongly disagree.
The only moral difference I see is between firing and not firing.
there is a moral difference between shooting a rocket as an answer to foreign aggressiveness and starting a war by shooting first.
I strongly disagree.
The only moral difference I see is between firing and not firing.
(edited)
Watch the docu Occupation 101 that I have posted (1 page back) and all becomes a lot less complex. People have made it look complex and unsolvable for what ever reason, but it really isn't.
And if you are truely not biased, look for the info yourself about Hamas/Fatah, that's the only right way to find answers. Or else there is a good change others will tell you their prejudgements (often the zionist side) and by reading and watching it yourself you can filter out these prejudgements and find the right info that you wanted to know.
And no, we don't agree. As I told you, the only difference is from which side you look at the situation and the names you give it. In the war between Assad's army and the rebels no one is talking about terrorism, same for the war between Mubarak's army and the rebels, and all other wars fought in the Arab Spring till now. (rebels = tribes, religious groups and/or etnic groups)
And if you are truely not biased, look for the info yourself about Hamas/Fatah, that's the only right way to find answers. Or else there is a good change others will tell you their prejudgements (often the zionist side) and by reading and watching it yourself you can filter out these prejudgements and find the right info that you wanted to know.
And no, we don't agree. As I told you, the only difference is from which side you look at the situation and the names you give it. In the war between Assad's army and the rebels no one is talking about terrorism, same for the war between Mubarak's army and the rebels, and all other wars fought in the Arab Spring till now. (rebels = tribes, religious groups and/or etnic groups)
I agree that we shall not look on Arab spring as something positive. Time will show if will prevail sane people or something like Hamas or Hezbollah and we shall be careful who to support. Its not that unknown that some terrorists hating West live also from western aid and western media often dont question it.
there is a moral difference between killing civilians on purpose and attacking military targets with civilian deaths as collateral damage
This is a good example why these type of discussions go round and round....
What one side deems as a military target, the other side sees as a civilian target. Leave alone the question what is "moral". ;)
For me, all of this is not a match, where we tally deads and injuries to make up a score, and based on this decide "who is wrong or right". In my opion all side are "wrong".
It is about all the common people that live in the region. They suffer because some of their leaders want to play power games, and do not show true vision and leadership.
So, I try to look at these type of discussions and questions, using international humanitarian law as a guideline. (I forgo the discussion whether or not this is a military conflict or not. For this post I just assume it is.)
According to customary international humanitarian law, participants in an armed conflict are not allowed to use indiscriminate attacks. I.e. attacks that are not targeted at military objectives or use weapons that cannot be directed at a military objective.
As such, it seems that the firing of rockets from Gaza, is a breach of international humanitarian law.
Eventhough they might be fired at a city with a military objective in it, the rocket cannot be aimed at that specific target.
However, according to the same customary law, participants in armed conflict are also not allowed to use attacks where "collateral damage" is disproportional to the concrete and direct military advantage.
Just to be sure: the amount of "collateral damage" itself, is not an indication of attacks being disproportional. I admit, this is somewhat of a grey area, but it is also clear that part of the Israeli attacks are disproportional. (E.g. Bombing of vacated office buildings in populated areas. There is no direct military advantage from this. Bombing open fields with rocket launch sites is an example of a proportional attack, eventhough it might damage civilian buildings or injure/kill some of them)
This last part of the customary law, is specially important if talking about "human shields" or using civilians or civilian objects as cover for military objects.
The law is very clear in this: if the civilians are not doing this voluntary, then all rules still apply. This means it is still the responsibility of the attacking party to make sure the attack is not disproportional.
(To be clear: the party "using" civilians is also breaking humanitarian law. But this is not a "get out of jail free" card for the other party). In this part of the conflict there are examples of Israeli attacks which seem disproportional and also attacks that seem proportional.
So also here, both sides are "wrong" ...
In my opinion both sides are wrong, anybody claiming "their" side is not wrong is simply closing their eyes for reality..
(And, no I'm not a pacifist. Armed conflict is sometimes inevitable or even needed.)
(edited)
This is a good example why these type of discussions go round and round....
What one side deems as a military target, the other side sees as a civilian target. Leave alone the question what is "moral". ;)
For me, all of this is not a match, where we tally deads and injuries to make up a score, and based on this decide "who is wrong or right". In my opion all side are "wrong".
It is about all the common people that live in the region. They suffer because some of their leaders want to play power games, and do not show true vision and leadership.
So, I try to look at these type of discussions and questions, using international humanitarian law as a guideline. (I forgo the discussion whether or not this is a military conflict or not. For this post I just assume it is.)
According to customary international humanitarian law, participants in an armed conflict are not allowed to use indiscriminate attacks. I.e. attacks that are not targeted at military objectives or use weapons that cannot be directed at a military objective.
As such, it seems that the firing of rockets from Gaza, is a breach of international humanitarian law.
Eventhough they might be fired at a city with a military objective in it, the rocket cannot be aimed at that specific target.
However, according to the same customary law, participants in armed conflict are also not allowed to use attacks where "collateral damage" is disproportional to the concrete and direct military advantage.
Just to be sure: the amount of "collateral damage" itself, is not an indication of attacks being disproportional. I admit, this is somewhat of a grey area, but it is also clear that part of the Israeli attacks are disproportional. (E.g. Bombing of vacated office buildings in populated areas. There is no direct military advantage from this. Bombing open fields with rocket launch sites is an example of a proportional attack, eventhough it might damage civilian buildings or injure/kill some of them)
This last part of the customary law, is specially important if talking about "human shields" or using civilians or civilian objects as cover for military objects.
The law is very clear in this: if the civilians are not doing this voluntary, then all rules still apply. This means it is still the responsibility of the attacking party to make sure the attack is not disproportional.
(To be clear: the party "using" civilians is also breaking humanitarian law. But this is not a "get out of jail free" card for the other party). In this part of the conflict there are examples of Israeli attacks which seem disproportional and also attacks that seem proportional.
So also here, both sides are "wrong" ...
In my opinion both sides are wrong, anybody claiming "their" side is not wrong is simply closing their eyes for reality..
(And, no I'm not a pacifist. Armed conflict is sometimes inevitable or even needed.)
(edited)
OMG the first normal post in this entire topic. Before getting some "you're biased" and "this is pro-jew propaganda shit" i'd say its a very clever post. And i'd start with it seems that the firing of rockets from Gaza, is a breach of international humanitarian law. I dont know if humanitarian law covers terrorism also, but i wonder, if firing rockets is against humanitarian law, what should Israel do? Sue Hamas at some international court?
I always thought that UN is an authority based on those laws, and if something like this happens, they should send troops there and protect civilians and finish this nonsense struggle. But instead, they just let things be and do nothing.
I always thought that UN is an authority based on those laws, and if something like this happens, they should send troops there and protect civilians and finish this nonsense struggle. But instead, they just let things be and do nothing.
From my point of view, this conflict will not end soon as many parts of this one are relied : water problem, oil problem, soil problem, religion problem...
If i'm not wrong, that's the lonely conflict of this type. Some group of people, in the name of holocaust got the right to take some lands with the permission of international community... If zionist movment had not existed, maybe this will never happened, even with holocaust drama... For example, we will never (or at least not in the next decades) see some independant american-native indians states as it happened for jewish people, even if the case is quite similar. Maybe if jewish people were introduced into these palestine lands instead of create an independant state, no problem would happen but we never know that fact.
As christian people got powerful into many european states some centuries and are still influent in some ways of life in some countries, as muslim people managed too to control some states into the native religious movment, jewish people think (in a religious way) to get also a land to live and use their ideology in peace. But arriving into some lands occupied by some muslim people who were and are still controlled in some ways by occidental countries (colonizations, slavery in the past) for mainly oil-controlled reasons, thus even if everyone wants to see peace in this area, no one would act clearly for one side excepted to protect israel state only because it is a very close base (for spy agencies) used to control the whole area (Middle East) and at the same time, not to be publically active (as USA for example who act onyl unofficially) and let israeli people to react from those hates towards jewish and occidental way of life. And as the power in every area is not the thoughts of all of its unhabitants, powerful leaders, to keep their strength towards neighbourgs, international community, religious-same way of life, tempt to use all propaganda's tools for their own aims... Most of people in Earth wants to live in peace excepted some leaders of many countries who are only here to keep their power and earn more money by different ways (economics weapons, oil, water...)
I only hope that time will give right to all those civilian peaceful people... But time will be long unfortunaltely...
I hoped that my words have not shocked too many readers but that's only my point of view of this part of history...
If i'm not wrong, that's the lonely conflict of this type. Some group of people, in the name of holocaust got the right to take some lands with the permission of international community... If zionist movment had not existed, maybe this will never happened, even with holocaust drama... For example, we will never (or at least not in the next decades) see some independant american-native indians states as it happened for jewish people, even if the case is quite similar. Maybe if jewish people were introduced into these palestine lands instead of create an independant state, no problem would happen but we never know that fact.
As christian people got powerful into many european states some centuries and are still influent in some ways of life in some countries, as muslim people managed too to control some states into the native religious movment, jewish people think (in a religious way) to get also a land to live and use their ideology in peace. But arriving into some lands occupied by some muslim people who were and are still controlled in some ways by occidental countries (colonizations, slavery in the past) for mainly oil-controlled reasons, thus even if everyone wants to see peace in this area, no one would act clearly for one side excepted to protect israel state only because it is a very close base (for spy agencies) used to control the whole area (Middle East) and at the same time, not to be publically active (as USA for example who act onyl unofficially) and let israeli people to react from those hates towards jewish and occidental way of life. And as the power in every area is not the thoughts of all of its unhabitants, powerful leaders, to keep their strength towards neighbourgs, international community, religious-same way of life, tempt to use all propaganda's tools for their own aims... Most of people in Earth wants to live in peace excepted some leaders of many countries who are only here to keep their power and earn more money by different ways (economics weapons, oil, water...)
I only hope that time will give right to all those civilian peaceful people... But time will be long unfortunaltely...
I hoped that my words have not shocked too many readers but that's only my point of view of this part of history...
WTF?! how old are you ? you are talking only nosense about nosense about no sense, hammas aren't terrorists?, go around listen, read something, you are something speciall xD
Actually Hamas are not terrorists for half of planet. Well, for that rogue half.
I agree every civilian who dies is one too much. And probably they 'hide' among the civilians (well, they're people too who have a social life I guess?) But don't tell me of those 1k+ who were killed, only 3 were terrorists :P
What one side deems as a military target, the other side sees as a civilian target. Leave alone the question what is "moral".
According to customary international humanitarian law, participants in an armed conflict are not allowed to use indiscriminate attacks. I.e. attacks that are not targeted at military objectives or use weapons that cannot be directed at a military objective.
And I prefer to leave the question of what the law says alone. 'Cause I don't care for the law. It's not because it's the law that it's right.
According to customary international humanitarian law, participants in an armed conflict are not allowed to use indiscriminate attacks. I.e. attacks that are not targeted at military objectives or use weapons that cannot be directed at a military objective.
And I prefer to leave the question of what the law says alone. 'Cause I don't care for the law. It's not because it's the law that it's right.