The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.
No one is suggesting that Hamas doesn't use weapons that target indiscriminately, or that the Al-Qassam Brigade is a terrorist organization. But Israel absolutely does deliberately target civilian targets such as the bombing of civilian homes and civilian infrastructure. It also routinely violates the laws of war through some of its military tactics such as using cluster munitions in high population areas. Also, when it comes to human shields I'd suggest that you look up the IDF's neighbor policy. It was even ruled illegal by the Israeli high court in 2005 but is still used off and on in the field. link for use of cluster bombs in densely populated areas (I know, that's all of gaza basically). just haven't heard this before. They haven't used them as far as I know during this operation. They carpeted southern Lebanon with them in 2006 though and post-war refused to transfer the locations in which they were dropped to the Lebanese government so that they could be cleaned up. Likewise they were used in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2009. Fletchings were also used which are also area of effect non-discriminatory weapons. |
|
|
|
The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.
No one is suggesting that Hamas doesn't use weapons that target indiscriminately, or that the Al-Qassam Brigade is a terrorist organization. But Israel absolutely does deliberately target civilian targets such as the bombing of civilian homes and civilian infrastructure. It also routinely violates the laws of war through some of its military tactics such as using cluster munitions in high population areas. Also, when it comes to human shields I'd suggest that you look up the IDF's neighbor policy. It was even ruled illegal by the Israeli high court in 2005 but is still used off and on in the field. |
|
|
|
Ukrainian army has confirmed that russian terrorists used russian anti-aircraft system but failed, there was an ukrainian military plane flying near the malaysian one. Simple mistake, great anti-aircraft btw.
What a bullshit? Pro-russian terrorists has gotten russian anti-aircraft system(a lot of proofs), as i said before they just failed, they wanted to shoot down ukrainian plane of military which was flying near that region... This is what happens when monkeys get modern weapon. |
|
|
|
|
What was a passenger plane doing anywhere near the war zone ?
And I highly doubt it crashed, some Asshole with a surface to air missile probably thought it would be funny to shoot down a civilian aircraft. ...
|
|
|
|
Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.
That's the key here. If anyone could come up with a way to end the cycles of violence, a lot of things could be solved. You mentioned earlier that Israel is main obstacle to peace. I disagree. I do think they are an equal partner in obstructionism, though. I know, and the Israelis know that so long as children are taught to hate Israelis from day 1 at school, there is another generation coming that will hate Jews, and continue fighting over historical wrongs. That path leads to never-ending war. Anything the Israelis do at this point is going to be negated by the next generation of kids growing up with hatred. Please bear in mind I am well aware that Israel has a vested interested in not allowing peace. Peace doesn't really work for them at this point. But the Palestinians are making it easy for them to make it look all defensive, and not giving the US any reason to force Israel to back down. War works against the Palestinians, and they are being dumb enough to keep going. Such is the stupidity in the area. I guess I would say it depends on what other people are using as definitions of counter productivity. Motive is key . I think that would be true of say the Netanyahu administration, Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and salafi Palestinian organizations, but I honestly see the Abbas government as one that is willing to sit at the peace table, and one that has been utterly ignored by Netanyahu and Olmert. When the Road Map was put into place the Palestinian Authority was the only party that honored it while Sharon and later Olmert didn't even halt settlement expansion or reopen the Orient House. Abbas has been willing at times to make some pretty large concessions (like only a symbolic right of return), and has been sitting at the peace table waiting for dialogue for years. Is there any reason in particular why you don't find the PA under Abbas to be a realistic partner for peace? |
|
|
|
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes. Where does intent come in from what you posted above? collateral damage (e.g. a civilian getting killed when you were targeting a terrorist) is a pretty big punishment for something they didnt do, even if it was unintentional. |
|
|
|
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? |
|
|
|
I love when some leftwing dumbass actually tries to argue that we aren't headed for insolvency because more money would fix that! lol. No you don't. You actually hate when once again a liberal points out that you are lying by omission: claiming that something is fact WITHOUT noting the mitigating factors stated. ALWAYS stating the "unsustainable" NEVER addressing the "at current revenue levels". An honest person--such as myself--would copy the entire statement and then address my concerns about the mitigating factors: not pretend they don't exist and state affirmatively that CBO said something it never did. But then again, I seem to be the only one on this board that gives a flying fuck about intellectual honesty anyway. You sure don't as we see above. |
|
|
|
|
Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the hog swap joke originated at the time of Clinton...hence the Arkansas Razorback being part of the joke. I've heard various forms of it applied to him...then Bush...now Obama.
|
|
|
|
In a conflict so long blaming any one party would be naive, as far as current politics go, Israel is the main obstacle to peace. Hamas doesn't help of course, but Israel could easily marginalize them through dealings with Fatah if they had wanted to cede to a two state solution. The conflict has continued over the past several years because there hasn't been the political will for a settlement in Israel under Olmert or Netanyahu.
Even now the Netanyahu administration is largely using this incident as an excuse to throw a tantrum over the unity government construction and target Hamas like they have in the past in hopes that they can break up the new government. It has been a fairly standard (and unfortunately effective) tactic. Most of the rockets coming into Israel haven't even been fired by Hamas, yet it has been primarily Hamas' infrastructure and activists that have thus far been bombed in the operation and it was primarily Hamas sympathizers that were arbitrarily detained without charge in the West Bank during the search.
Seems like a fairly restrained response considering Hamas's penchant for firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Even if they respond with home demolitions, I'd call it totally reasonable and justified since Hamas's tactics are essentially collective punishment to begin with. Really, all terrorism is just collective punishment committed by a weak force against a stronger one and can only be deterred by the stronger party being willing to escalate to a much more extreme level of violence. You can start calling the Israeli response disproportionate when Gaza looks like Grozny. It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its persistence is simply proof that your ideologies are pretty poor tactics when it comes to ending cycles of violence. So in other words, you are a supporter of terrorism. Not surprised. |
|
|
|
|
In a conflict so long blaming any one party would be naive, as far as current politics go, Israel is the main obstacle to peace. Hamas doesn't help of course, but Israel could easily marginalize them through dealings with Fatah if they had wanted to cede to a two state solution. The conflict has continued over the past several years because there hasn't been the political will for a settlement in Israel under Olmert or Netanyahu.
Even now the Netanyahu administration is largely using this incident as an excuse to throw a tantrum over the unity government construction and target Hamas like they have in the past in hopes that they can break up the new government. It has been a fairly standard (and unfortunately effective) tactic. Most of the rockets coming into Israel haven't even been fired by Hamas, yet it has been primarily Hamas' infrastructure and activists that have thus far been bombed in the operation and it was primarily Hamas sympathizers that were arbitrarily detained without charge in the West Bank during the search.
|
|
|
|
The older I get, the more cynical I get. I'm at the point where I think it's best if things escalate totally out of control, and the resulting deaths and destruction on both sides are so horrid they agree to stop. I don't know if that would work out, but I truly doubt there is any other solution to this shit.
Both sides share a lot of blame, and I can't say I have much sympathy for any of the combatants. Blaming Israel alone is naïve, especially when you consider that every school anywhere in the middle east has maps that show that Israel doesn't exist, and they are constantly taught that Israel took their land and are evil. That is undeniable, and it forces a continuation of generational blood feuds. It's never ending hate propaganda.
Defending Israel is equally ludicrous. When you get right down to it, Israel is a theocracy...or the next best thing to that...trying to say it's a liberal democracy. It cannot ever be a liberal democracy, because the Palestinians would take control of the country in very few years.
You're right, a lot of people in the world do not understand the situation in Israel is much more complicated, the Israelis want to live in peace, the problem that the State of Palestine is conducted by the Hamas government and the Islamic Jihad, if done well it's like negotiate with al Qaeda or Hezbollah are organizations of terror did not want the existence of Israel, and worse than that Israel is trying to protect itself so well is sometimes harms innocent civilians but because Hamas shoots rockets at Israeli kindergartens, schools, and hiding the rockets basement home family living upstairs, so how Israel can protect its people and to give her some peace?? ... still not found a solution and it's really hard! I don't see a solution either until Israel's population becomes liberal enough to form a government that doesn't depend on smaller highly conservative kingmaker parties. They came close with Livni, but that's how we ended up with Netanyahu and since then the conservative bloc has only gotten stronger. I certainly hope that it doesn't come to what you described and I honestly don't see that happening, the sides are too uneven for Israel to be ravaged enough to come to terms. Though I don't think it is cynical to suggest that sometimes that is how conflicts need to (unfortunately) end. That's what happened with Liberia, that's what it took in Chad, that's what it took in the DRC, etc. I'm worried that is how Syria will have to end up and potentially Iraq as well. |
|
|
|
|
Is this Microsoft's way of saying that their involvement in PRISM et al has proven difficult, that their backdoors aren't working for them and that we should make passwords easier for them to crack? What a tit.
Always use a complex password with uppercase, lowercase, numbers and special characters where allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
Two percent? Like SNAP, this ex-Catholic suspects the percentage is higher.
I suspect that some young men who are troubled by their sexuality are drawn to the priesthood in the mistaken belief that it will somehow correct the issues they have. The more diabolical among them may take up the priesthood for access to children.
|
|
|
|
|
Yellowstone is actually an underground moving super volcano. Land has been rising for quite some time making lake beds rise to the surface.
The Earth's crust is moving on top of other layers and the top layer is very thin there. The main magma chamber is in the the underneath layer.
The volcano will only burst out when there's enough pressure. When magma bubbles up it might not come to a full blowout and functions as a pressure release.
The air might become toxic with sulfuric gas in that area though.
|
|
|
|
Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision
He(umair) is indeed wrong. In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights...... I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm I had actually beat him to that too, and he still either didn't understand the point or ignored it. He then responds to this post saying that 'person' is defined by The Dictionary Act, effectively (and seemingly completely unaware that he was) conceding. He mentions in the beginning of that thread he had been a lawyer. It makes sense why he gave up on that. He seems to think the job description of a lawyer is to shit your pants and then do as much as you can to strengthen your opponent's argument. lol I'm not sure how anyone could claim that only one piece of law played into the Hobby Lobby decision. Even at first glance, the Hobby Lobby case involved more than the RFRA, because it requires the First Amendment as well. And looking deeper at the case, it is evident that other laws played a part, like: 1. exemptions in the ACA itself, 2. the Dictionary Act, 3. the 14th Amendment, 4. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (and a variety of related case law), 5. and even the justices' vague consideration of state laws defining closely-held corporations. |
|
|
|
Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision
He(umair) is indeed wrong. In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights...... I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm |
|
|
|
Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.
As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008? I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living. You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under. Perhaps you need a refresher course on how statutes work.I'm counting more than 1 piece of legislation already. |
|
|
|
Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.
As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008? I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
