[Splinter]

Haven't we been around this circle a thousand times before in this forum? Who claimed that all this happened? What is the Palestinians greatest "weapon" and "tactics"? Do they have a long and well documented history of using these "weapons" and "tactics" against their enemies? Does the international media have any better history of truth telling in these matters or do they usually just gobble up the juiciest story and sh*t it out for all to read?

Yes we have. The Palestinians. Propaganda, international media bias, sob stories that make great headlines. Yes like the hundreds butchered in Jenin or the 'fact' that there were no militants anywhere near that school...oops, or even the photo that started the 2nd intifada. I would hope the answer to the last one would be so blatantly obvious but I guess not since people still seem to take everything they are fed by their local news outlet as stone cold fact.

That video of the human shields you keep bringing up is the perfect example of how this works.
00:55-01:05 That guy is leading the soldier to whatever he wants to show him. 1. His walk/run and stance is not one of fear 2. there is only one soldier going with him not the whole group. Human shield or not soldiers don't walk into a possible attack alone. 3. if he was being used as a human shield he the soldier would be up close behind him advancing slowly.
01:05-01:08 just take a look at the picture the soldier had apprehended someone and came under attack 1. if he was a human shield he would be standing not crouching 2. he would be out in front of the soldier as it is he is clearly covered from the angel of attack the soldier is aiming toward. 3. the reason he is not back somewhere else would be because they are behind a pillar and moving out from under it's cover would endanger them both. I mean seriously? the soldier gave that guy more cover then he is giving himself! FFS!
01:08-01:14 Kid was throwing stones and was stopped. 1. if he was a human shield he would be freaking out and not sitting calmly 2. if he is a human shield for what? the jeep? they have a cage against stones and bulletproof glass.... what the hell would they need a kid for? 3. if he was shielding them from attack the soldier wouldn't be outside his vehicle talking on the radio while leaning casually on something to his left. 4. would you prefer the kid handcuffed? they tied a belt around his arm. oh no! and to stop him from just running away they attached him to what they had close by.

If I came up to you on the street and you didn't know me but I told you a very convincing story about how some guy came and raped my daughter and beat my wife etc etc and then I asked your help to get the son of a b*tch would you help me or would you need a bit more proof before going after someone? Chances are you would think it was unlikely and wouldn't jump at the prospect, but imagine that I had a history of coming up to people on the street and being willing to lie to their faces to get the result I wanted. Chances are in that situation your average person would assume it was another bullsh*t story and demand proof before acting.

I sometimes wish Israeli parents would be as sick as SOME of their counterparts and teach their kids to cry and lie and make up huge horrific stories about the evil Palestinians and some ridiculous media outlet somewhere would publish 'first hand accounts' by 'reliable sources' about Palestinian evil and then all the news outlets will pick it up as fact.

The really sad part is that no one can prove any of this to anyone. Everything we quote everything we find in research and study is all just what someone else said and like I always say unless you see it for yourself...

[Uchuujinsan]

So you'd support American troops using Canadian children as human shields? That's perfectly fine with you?

Depends on what Canada was doing to us.  If Canada was launching rockets, suicide bombers, and general terror attacks us, maybe I would.

Then America would be seen as the bad guys to everyone else in the world for being inhumane.

I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written.

Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.

Even if it is it's still a 200-some year-old piece of paper that was never followed. It's pointless even being taught to anyone at all anymore.

I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written.

Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.

No. It's an ideal. Nothing more, nothing less.

So you say not all men are created equal?

[The E]

So you say not all men are created equal?

Yes. As much as I hate it, but just by virtue of when and where I was born, I have more and better opportunities to live up to that ideal than many others. I would argue that no country on this earth truly follows that ideal with regards to their own population.

[Commander Zane]

Men were never created equally, nor were they ever treated equally.
Look how long it took for other races to get the same rights that others have. Look how long it took for women to get the same rights as men have.
233 years. 233 years of people wanting to be able to live like the rest of the average Americans, women only spending their time as housemaids / wives for over half of that period, with Blacks being slaves even after the damn thing was written, and then STILL treated like dirt when they were given the opportunity to live on thier own for over half of that 233 year period.

Hypocracy is the norm of human life.

[SpardaSon21]

There's equal (which is impossible), and there's equal before the law (which is not just possible, but necessary).  That line also says that all men are equal before their Creator, in this case, God.  That line is supposed to mean that all men should be treated equally by both the law and by men.  And by men, I mean the human race, not just males.

[Uchuujinsan]

@Commander Zane/The E
I didn't ask about how it was fullfilled in reality, I asked what you thought about this.
You know, some time ago a country said, not all men are created equal, we are created superior. And in the end, after a world war and a few million dead people, it led to the creation of Israel. And now we are here, and nothing has changed, nothing has been learned.

Nuke, I think I lost... lost hope in humanity -.-
Maybe I'll join you, nuke 'em all. ;(

That line also says that all men are equal before their Creator, in this case, God.  That line is supposed to mean that all men should be treated equally by both the law and by men.  And by men, I mean the human race, not just males.

I think so, too. I thought everyone else here does as well. I was wrong.

@Splinter
There are to different questions:
a) Did it happen?
b) If it did happen, was it ok?
What would you answer to question b?
It seems a few answered yes, what would your answer be?

[Commander Zane]

But we weren't treated equally by the law. We weren't treated equally by the rest of the human race. Equal is as possible as world peace.

[Scotty]

It says created equal, not treated equally.  All mankind has been created equally before the eyes of God, what mankind does to mankind is not subject to that ideal.

You know, some time ago a country said, not all men are created equal, we are created superior. And in the end, after a world war and a few million dead people, it led to the creation of Israel.

Yeah, and they lost.  About 60 million dead, and only indirectly lead to Israel, which doesn't really matter in that context.

And now we are here, and nothing has changed, nothing has been learned

"You can't say civilization don't advance, for in every war they kill you in a new way."  - Will Rogers.

Answering for Splinter:

a)no
b)no.  I was defending the RoE earlier, not crimes against humanity, which I'm still quite certain never happened.

[Uchuujinsan]

Yeah, and they lost.  About 60 million dead, and only indirectly lead to Israel, which doesn't really matter in that context.

Somehow it doesn't, somehow it does.
Israel should learn from the mistakes of Nazi Germany, they were victims at that time. Kill a few hundred Polish? Well, it will show them they shouldn't resist, we need to protect German life, cause it's better. And take the money of the jews, we need it to feed our poor German kids. Kill a thousand so they stop terrorizing us, killing a few? Why not? Believe that the life of the other has equal value, where? They are the uncivilized beyond the border after all.
Do you think people in Germany at that time thought they were wrong? Of course not, everything was ok that way.
Ah, I just Godwined myself, so I will stop

Answering for Splinter:

a)no
b)no.  I was defending the RoE earlier, not crimes against humanity, which I'm still quite certain never happened.

a) was already answered :/
But I am glad to hear the answer to b)
We still share values after all...

[karajorma]

The really sad part is that no one can prove any of this to anyone. Everything we quote everything we find in research and study is all just what someone else said and like I always say unless you see it for yourself...

As the report said, the drone attack was videotaped. Israel can easily prove that it was an accident/didn't happen if they want.


As for the rest of your post, you're simply assuming it didn't happen without investigation. Also the question has to be asked. If the IDF never used human shields why did Israel's supreme court need to specifically ban the use of them?

[Splinter]

@Splinter
There are to different questions:
a) Did it happen?
b) If it did happen, was it ok?
What would you answer to question b?
It seems a few answered yes, what would your answer be?

a) No one here can say for 100% fact if it did or did not happen therefore what you need to look at is who has more reason is more likely and has more history of trying to deceive you. (and that isn't always as clear cut to everyone either) My personal belief based on 20 years of living this situation is that the more likely candidate for deceit by a long shot is Hamas and the residents of Gaza. (Yes it's 20 years of living on the Israeli side but I have hundreds of Arab friends and or acquaintances most of whom are Muslim not Christian a surprisingly large number of whom say that their own brother and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank are liars. In addition I am not completely for Israel either. I have a huge hatred problem toward orthodox Jews whom to me have proven time and time again to be the most racist selfish smelly (literally) people I know. and I have a problem with the many of the settlers because believe it or not most IDF soldiers hate having to guard them because they hide behind that protection and harass the Arabs neighbors. specifically I know in Hebron but I am sure it happens elsewhere.)

b)If it did happen then you need context before making a snap call but as it is presented here if this is the truth and more importantly the WHOLE truth then no it's not ok. One of the main reasons I found these stories unlikely being quoted from IDF soldiers was because every IDF soldier knew that every area they went into every building was warned by leaflets megaphones and even cellphone calls to the residents before moving in on a building therefore the order to shoot on sight is not as excessive as it may seem. Another thing is that most Israelis especially the ones in combat units go through some Arab courses and I have yet to meet a Palestinian that doesn't know any Hebrew. I can guarantee you that the woman and child were told in Arabic or signaled with hand gestures at the very least. Someone said they were heading away from Israeli forces... where does it say that? They were heading away from the group that sent them but there were soldiers all over they were probably running right towards another platoon when the sniper shot them. And there have been PLENTY of woman suicide bombers before.   

As the report said, the drone attack was videotaped. Israel can easily prove that it was an accident/didn't happen if they want.

And America can easily prove that whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was in fact a plane with the video tape from the gas station.
The reasons could be many or few but again your assuming that the report was truthful which means you are assuming their sources were truthful. And believe me (or don't) sometimes the reporters are bigger liars than anyone because they also have motive to get a juicier story and to get the story that will gain the most outrage anyone nowadays telling himself he is getting unbiased reporting from his news outlet is living in a cave I don't care if you are in Israel the US the UK or Tajikistan.

As for the rest of your post, you're simply assuming it didn't happen without investigation. Also the question has to be asked. If the IDF never used human shields why did Israel's supreme court need to specifically ban the use of them?

I'm not assuming. Everyone else (the media and some people here) assumed it DID happen I simply presented logical faults with their argument and character that would lead me to lean towards their deceit and not the other way around... that is until proven otherwise. But what is funny with these post war investigations is that every time (see 2nd Lebanon war, Operation Defensive Shield etc..) So many of the biggest juiciest stories are revealed to be complete and utter fabrications by the Arabs favorite weapons and even then very few news outlets recant.

And the question can be answered. When it was brought up that the IDF were using human shields no one did anything because no one noticed outside of Israel and they didn't do anything because they knew Amnesty international and Human rights groups are so twisted you are more likely to find the truth up Ahcmedinijads small intestine. Then it became and international concern so the Supreme Court wanted to cover it's own ass by Passing this law even though they didn't think anyone in the IDF had done such a thing they wanted to appease those concerns.

After reading that article it seems that they use 'human shield' to encompass a large array of activities. Using locals to talk to other wanted locals because they can do so in Arabic better than the Israelis can is a human shield? Having locals tell wanted suspects that they should surrender because they are surrounded is a human shield? I thought a human shield was using another human to cover your body from outside attack. A single guy won't save a platoon from getting hit by bullets. So if that is all they did then I don't really have that much of a problem with it. As long as they don't use any mentally handicapped or anything. Seriously saying they couldn't refuse being told to do that is BS. No IDF soldier is going to shoot a detainee just because he won't go door to door for them.

[TrashMan]

Haven't we been around this circle a thousand times before in this forum? Who claimed that all this happened? What is the Palestinians greatest "weapon" and "tactics"? Do they have a long and well documented history of using these "weapons" and "tactics" against their enemies? Does the international media have any better history of truth telling in these matters or do they usually just gobble up the juiciest story and sh*t it out for all to read?
Yes we have. The Palestinians. Propaganda, international media bias, sob stories that make great headlines.

That works both ways. And who has more resources, more connections to use for propaganda? Israel or some palestinian terrorists?
Oh geez, that's such a difficult question.
Both have the same amount of money, communicational acess and political leverage...yeah right. Dream on!

[TrashMan]

They should have? Then what? As bad as what happened to the civilians, Israel sure as heck sent a message. Because one thing that can be assured, the U.N. sure as heck wasn't gonna do a thing besides whine, "Bad Hamas, don't shoot Israel with rockets." To be perfectly honest, Israel was gonna get griped at by the U.N. in any case.

Killing civilians is horrible, but war is horrible, and if it takes extreme force, then use extreme force.

What I'm beefed at is Isreal systematicly destroying infastructure. Notice a pattern?

Every time Israel invades the Gaza strip is destroys infrastructure, factories, mills, waterworks, plants - en masse.
It tries to keep the Gaza strip undeveloped and dependant on importing stuff from Israel. No wonder some Palestinians shoot rockets.
If I was a plaestinian living in Gaza, I'd be the first one to take up arms.

Soooo.... Israel needs to be held to a higher standard than another established government?  Why does Hamas get away with no blame at all for this?  Hamas may be a terrorist organization to us, but it is the government of the Gaza Strip.  It should be held to the same standards.

Except that Hamas doesn't have nearly the same levlel of control Israel has. The persons responsible or shoting those rockets - they're not part of any formal military or a clearly organized strucrue. They might not even be Hamas. Maybe they are Fatah. Or some other smaller splinter group.
Simpl put, Hamas doesn't even have the means to stop all rocket attacks, even if it wanted to.

[TrashMan]

And America can easily prove that whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was in fact a plane with the video tape from the gas station.

IIRC, they did do that. I recall a video of that. Even if I'm wrong, it's easy enough to prove - a plain with passengers doesn't just dissapear. If Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, then where did tat plane go?

So many of the biggest juiciest stories are revealed to be complete and utter fabrications by the Arabs favorite weapons and even then very few news outlets recant.

When it was brought up that the IDF were using human shields no one did anything because no one noticed outside of Israel and they didn't do anything because they knew Amnesty international and Human rights groups are so twisted you are more likely to find the truth up Ahcmedinijads small intestine.

Aha...so propaganada is used on a massive scale by terrorist and Israel doesn't use it an all? And non-government controlled organizations that criticize Israel are all twisted and evil?
Are you sure you weren't brainwashed?

[Slasher]

Holy crap, when did Kissinger start posting on HLP, why does he use two or three alt-nicks, and can I have your autograph, sir? 

[Scotty]

They might not even be Hamas. Maybe they are Fatah. Or some other smaller splinter group.
Simpl put, Hamas doesn't even have the means to stop all rocket attacks, even if it wanted to.

Okay, first of all, Al-Fatah is not a splinter group.  Rather, Hamas is a splinter group of Al-Fatah.  Up until more than two years ago, Al-Fatah was the government of the Gaza Strip.  Hamas ousted them in a violent coup in June 2006.

Secondly, if Hamas doesn't have the means to stop belligerence coming from its own territory, why should it be in place in the beginning?

I also notice that no-one responded to my WWII comment.  Killing Germans and other people in air raids during WWII wasn't called a war crime, why should Israel have those charges leveled at it now?  AFAIK, the Geneva Convention hasn't changed much.

[The E]

It wasn't called a war crime back then because the term didn't exist, really. It is being called a war crime now.

[Scotty]

But really, why should Israel be held to a higher standard than even the U.S., the U.K., France, and all the nations of WWII?

[The E]

Just because other countries committed war crimes doesn't make it right. Because the world is sick and tired of the endless violence in that region. Because Israel, as the only western democracy in the region, is held to higher standard.

[Ghostavo]

But really, why should Israel be held to a higher standard than even the U.S., the U.K., France, and all the nations of WWII?

Because we're not in 1941 anymore?