Interestingly enough ATM BBC is being blamed for being too neutral/pro-Israel (ie. not participating in the charity appeal).. So i bit more inclined to believe BBC reporting to be far closer to the truth than the other sources.
That's rather odd. Blamed by whom may I ask?
That is I don't believe a word claimed coming from Hamas or IDF - both sides just try to glorify and polish their deeds while trying to downplay the war crimes. Given that IDF for example first blatantly lied about the use of white phosphorous and then changed their story to 'not having used it against civilians' while shelling WP at urban areas.. yeah... right... And how much do i trust their numbers on the killed Hamas combatants... given that they already lied.. hmm.. none?
The only story I had ever heard them say over here was that it was not used against people specifically civilians since it would be ludicrous to claim it was not used at all since many military forces use it and it is considered common place. "White phosphorus (WP) is a flare- and smoke-producing incendiary device[1] or smoke-screening agent that is made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus. The main utility of white phosphorus munitions is to create smokescreens to mask movement from the enemy, or to mask his fire. In contrast to other smoke-causing munitions, WP detonates immediately causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result of this, WP munitions are very common -- particularly as smoke grenades for infantry; loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles; or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars.
White phosphorus weapons are controversial today because of their potential use against civilians. While the Chemical Weapons Convention does not designate WP as a chemical weapon, various groups consider it to be one. In recent years, the United States, Israel, and Russia have used white phosphorus in combat."
Every incident where I can see direct quotes from the IDF by news agency's here and listening to what they say in Hebrew it is always either "no comment" "we are investigating the use of phosphorus as a weapon" "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics." Like I said WP is commonplace with many armies and the claim that it was never used would have been preposterous and simply silly because it's use is not illegal therefore what use would it be to claim it was never used? Of course I shouldn't expect anyone who reads the BBC to have heard that anyway. Don't feel as if I am attacking you personally... I'm not I simply wish everyone could have seen what I have seen in these conflicts and seen how close to the truth that skit really was. I said it earlier in this thread and I will say it again. You have no idea what it is like to watch yourself or your friends do one thing then hear later someone lie about what you did to the whole world making the whole outraged at you calling you Nazis etc... but I can't attack you personally for this... this is what you have heard so this is what you know and until you hear otherwise from a source more reliable (which if you consider the BBC reliable then the only source you would consider more reliable would be a friend or yourself) you will most likely continue to know only what they tell you and have no reasonable excuse why NOT to believe them.
As for IDF bullying over peacekeepers.. Its kinda easy to play rough when going with tank (or APC converted from a tank) against light APC... After that UN forces in Lebanon actually got tanks (French with Leclercs) and they stopped IDF on their tracks.
This was before Sarkozy... the French never stopped anything in it's tracks before him.
Sorry couldn't resist and to any French who took offense... don't. I meant nothing by it and I know that's a false stereotype about the fine men and women of the French military.
Back on track. The Tanks arrived just the same time as everyone else. And they have been there ever since and it has still not "stopped the IDF on their tracks" wishful thinking though. They actually play guard dog sometimes for our operations across the fence. I have no idea what promoted the whole Finnish UN IDF incident but it was a one time or very rare occurrence. After the 2006 war if I were to tell you how many times we crossed the fence and operated under the UNs knowledge(although still technically Israeli territory since we built the fence back from the border.) you would fall off your seat. My point is that they don't usually, or from my recollection in recent history, have ever tried to stop the IDF from doing whatever it was it deemed necessary save that clip I just showed you and therefore the point still stands that you would need a very massive weapons free UN force in Gaza to stop the IDF. Period.
What makes you think I'm drawing all my arguments from memory? What makes you think I read from only one source?
There never is a 100% guarantee that what you read is true, but when sufficient evidence mounts up, chances for story 1 being true are greately increased.
Well ummm... This?
I'm drawing from my memory here, but I read about hunderds of thousands people that lost their home, with Hamas having a esitmated 20 000 armed fighters.
After asking you repeatedly to produce links about the story or stories you were referencing you responded with this therefore I assumed you were not lying to me and that you were drawing your argument from memory. Are you saying I should have assumed you were deceiving me?
Who said you were reading only one source? Why do you keep making assumptions about what I think? I think I have been pretty clear about what I think there is no need to assume. If I had good reason to think you were getting all your info from Sky News I would have said so.
Besides, the numbers speak for themselves.You can say what you want but a response of this caliber, with this much destruction and death, all over a few rockets fired? Wrong, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'll address this in 2 parts. The one where you believe numbers on a page are talking to you. The other is where you really REALLY are crying out for a reality check.
1. I have shown you already past president, means, cause and even intent as to why number would lie in these situations. Not only that I have shown you an incident in the past where I would put good money most the world still believes the original figures stated by reliable eye witnesses and trusted news correspondents. And even if this weren't the case. All that aside. Since when has war been "You killed ten of my guys so I will kill ten of yours and then we are even." What you are saying is you would have been happier if you had read the numbers were closer together like 500 to 450. or even if it were low numbers they had killed one in response we killed 5 you would have been more satisfied if they had killed 3 more and made it 4 cause it's more fair. Life isn't fair. War is definitely not fair. And for the love of God I pray you are never in a foxhole next to me in a war because if we start winning the war you would stand up say it's not fair and get us both killed to "even it out".
2. "all over a few rockets fired" I really think you should have reconsidered that statement before writing it. "From 2001 until December, 2008, there have been over 4048 rockets and 4040 mortars fired at Israeli targets". These numbers vary drastically even on Wikipedia this is actually one of the lower estimates and doesn't include the rockets fired during the recent Gaza war which between 27th of Dec and the 5th of Jan was already up to 500. Since you are into numbers I guess it seems insignificant because not many people died. only 15 people died and only 433 wounded between 2001-2007 and another 8 dead in 2008 (no numbers on wiki of the wounded). So I guess if it's so few I invite you to go to southern Israel speak to these 433 wounded and the hundreds more wounded in 2008 and the families of the 23 dead you would tell them to stop crying over "a few rockets fired". Imagine for a moment that a group of people indigenous to wherever you live develop a goal to eradicate your kind and then, after blowing you and your people up for years they are finally blockaded and all attempts to attack again are foiled by your military. But they decide it's not enough reason to stop the targeting of civilians and seek peace they decide they will come up with new ways to attack. Not quite as heavy on the death toll but much heavier on the psyche. Raining death down wherever the wind carries it no one can know where it will land all they have is 15 seconds to run to shelter. Playground are not built with bomb shelters in the shape of caterpillars that kids can climb into. Keep this up for 8 years and then come tell me its just "a few rockets fired." If I was a lesser man I would wish this on you just so you could eat your own words and beg to be relived of the constant agony living under that kind of threat. But thank God I'm not and thank God you will most likely never have to find out. All I can do is wish you gain a little clarity as to what life like that would be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUBX8ROqLwE&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIZ3gHCuFBc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkZebJAd_68&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHhXINu6mCc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggKOjY_daiM&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0GElGPDsL0
