Journalists Are Dodging Rockets and Online Attacks as Gaza Crumbles, by VICE

[Bolas 5]

Darius11

It doesn;t change that a massively superior army is killing and bombing people that they put in such a desperate situation to begin with.

But if they are as evil as you say, why have they not just destroyed everyone and everything in the area and just taken the land back or gone old school religion style and just salted it?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kelpdiver 2]

Bolas

***It doesn;t change that a massively superior army is killing and bombing people that they put in such a desperate situation to begin with.

But if they are as evil as you say, why have they not just destroyed everyone and everything in the area and just taken the land back or gone old school religion style and just salted it?

Indeed - kill every male over 6 and send all the girls to schools and the problem ends.

[rifleman 61]

The Middle East crisis explained in simple terms:

Quote

Basically, Israel and Palestine are like two brothers who both believe that when their dad passed away, they should inherit the house.

Unfortunately, they both have two different versions of the will, each of which says they are entitled to the house and a court has decided that the only solution is for them both to live in the same house.

After years of arguing over who owns which room, Palestine is currently confined to the laundry and Israel won't let them get to the fridge.

The council can't do anything about it, the neighbours can't do anything about it and the value of every house in the neighbourhood has dropped.

Adam Hills - The Last Leg

This lead on to this rant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRC61uGwp8k

Enjoy

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[kelpdiver 2]

rifleman

The Middle East crisis explained in simple terms:

as usual, simple = moronic.

In particular, the fucking neighbors created and fuel the problem, egging one the brother 'in the laundry' to kill the other brother, rather than giving him a better life.

[melch 0]

Last time I checked, Israel conducted a unilateral withdrawal of Gaza in 2005 and turned everything over to Hamas. The abandoned settlements and the IDF evicted and forced a number of Israelis out of the area. Rather than spending money on infrastructure, education, and social programs they stockpiled caches of rockets, built tunnels, and planned...

Israel is one of the last countries in the world, I believe, that has a don't give a fuck attitude. You bring a bat, I bring a knife. You bring a knife, I bring a gun. When the rockets first started falling Israel deployed the Iron Dome. When the rocket fire intensified, they conducted airstrikes against military targets. After 2 weeks of attempting to de-escalate through escalated measures (yes I know that sounds contradictory) they threw out the fuck it card and went to town.

Darius, I'm not a fan of personal attacks, but you must simply stop drinking the Kool-Aid my friend. Your posts in addition to your choice to ignore history prior to the 1930s is laughable. To think that this conflict is not rooted in ancient history is to ignore the very foundation of the problem. Sure, the geopolitical fabrics of today can be more directly linked to the 1930s-present, but in fact this conflict will continue because it is a difference of beliiefs at at the very center of two cultures. Abraham, Issac, Jacov and the covenant vs the decendants of Ishmael...

[Darius11 12]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-v5WlY8Uf5U

great back and forth about this issue. I guess hanity and Russell brand have been going back and forth. Not a fan of any of these guys. But its a great point on point of the facts vs the propaganda.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[normiss 622]

Brand is an idiot.

[Amazon 7]

normiss

Brand is an idiot.

And Hannity cannot even aspire to Brand's level of intelligence as an idiot.

[rehmwa 2]

Amazon

***Brand is an idiot.

And Hannity cannot even aspire to Brand's level of intelligence as an idiot.

someone please parse this sentence for me - hard to tell which commentator is receiving the bigger insult

though clear both are regardless.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 212]

rehmwa

******Brand is an idiot.

And Hannity cannot even aspire to Brand's level of intelligence as an idiot.

someone please parse this sentence for me - hard to tell which commentator is receiving the bigger insult

though clear both are regardless.....

Go back to fourth grade, hang out with the kids there . . . it will clear it RIGHT up for you.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[falxori 0]

Back on the original topic of news accuracy, here are a few examples showing the main reason you haven't seen "proof" under from Israeli sources about Hamas using civilians as human shields. Hamas has threatened journalists in Gaza not to report it. now that they are out, some chose to speak up... 3 examples, from India, Finland and Italy...

Full story with a video on how Hamas set up and fired rockets right next to hotels and apartments:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ndtv-exclusive-how-hamas-assembles-and-fires-rockets-571033


Why you usually don't hear about it: "This report is being aired on NDTV and published on ndtv.com after our team left the Gaza strip - Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired"

Want more: A finnish reporter saying Rockets are fired from right next to Gaza's main hospital (the same one Hamas leaders are hiding in...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-e5qWXx-k

Want more: "Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”"

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/30/italian-journalist-defies-hamas-out-of-gaza-far-from-hamas-retaliation-misfired-rocket-killed-children-in-shati/

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[melch 0]

Can't remember where I saw it but also saw an article discussing the IO war in Gaza. Hamas was doing great work distributing photos of dead children which were later revealed to be old photos of casualties associated with the Syrian conflict rather than the current situation in Gaze.

[falxori 0]

Yeah, happens all the time.
They also used images from horor movies http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/15/hamas-uses-horror-movie-still-of-headless-girl-in-miniskirt-to-depict-gaza-casualties-on-social-media-warning-graphic-video/

Just google "Pallywood" and you can see some interesting productions where dead people get up and do another take.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[DanG 1]

Are you arguing that no civilians have been killed in Gaza during the recent conflict?

- Dan G

[falxori 0]

No.
Civilians have been killed and that is horrible and definitely not what Israel wants.

I'm saying that most civilians were killed because of Hamas cowardly tactics of putting them next to rocket launchers.

I'm also saying that dead civilians are exactly what Hamas wants and that they often "manufacture" and stage events to serve their media campaign (which is sadly, working)

Hamas is the worst thing that happened to Gaza

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[billvon 2,395]

>I'm saying that most civilians were killed because of Hamas cowardly tactics of
>putting them next to rocket launchers.

Well, civilians were killed in this case because Israel fired on Gaza locations (just as Israelis have been killed by Palestinian weapons.) I agree that Hamas is a bunch of cowards, but Israel has a choice too. And they decided to launch rockets knowing there was a risk of civilian deaths - and decided the risk was worth it. Thus they are responsible for those deaths.

The person who pulls the trigger is responsible for the results of that action.

[falxori 0]

Oh really,
so what would you do if I shoot at your family while hiding behind my kid?
would you just stand there and hope I keep missing or will you try to neutralize me to protect your family, even if you may unintentionally hit my kid?

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>I'm saying that most civilians were killed because of Hamas cowardly tactics of
>putting them next to rocket launchers.

Well, civilians were killed in this case because Israel fired on Gaza locations (just as Israelis have been killed by Palestinian weapons.) I agree that Hamas is a bunch of cowards, but Israel has a choice too. And they decided to launch rockets knowing there was a risk of civilian deaths - and decided the risk was worth it. Thus they are responsible for those deaths.

The person who pulls the trigger is responsible for the results of that action.

We don't hold cops (criminally) responsible for shooting criminals who shoot at cops.

And when someone dies by any means due to a burglar sticking up the 7-11, that burglar gets charged with murder, even if the deceased is one of his accomplices.

You're not a 6 year old, Bill. You're fully capable of more complex cause and effect analysis. Hamas is the primary cause of the collateral losses, by design and by their own words.

[billvon 2,395]

>so what would you do if I shoot at your family while hiding behind my kid?

I would get my family of harm's way as quickly as possible.

However, what you are probably asking is this:

"So what would you do if I shot at your family and there was no way for you to leave, and the only option you had was firing back at me?"

In that case, I would shoot back and try to hit you. If I hit your kid instead and killed him, then I would be responsible for his death, since I was the one who fired the gun. I'd have to decide if I was OK with that _before_ pulling the trigger.

[billvon 2,395]

>We don't hold cops (criminally) responsible for shooting criminals who shoot at cops.

I didn't say that we should hold anyone criminally responsible. I am saying that if a cop shoots a criminal and kills him, then the cop is responsible for that death. (And in most places there will be an investigation into the shooting, because that is a very, very fucking serious action to take, even when it is justified.)

[falxori 0]

Quote

In that case, I would shoot back and try to hit you. If I hit your kid instead and killed him, then I would be responsible for his death, since I was the one who fired the gun. I'd have to decide if I was OK with that _before_ pulling the trigger.

Ok, that's fair. Sounds like you would do whatever you can to not hit the kid, including warning both of them, firing a few warning shots, etc. which is exactly what Israel has been trying to do.
But, if after all these warnings, I still chose to keep shooting and using my kid as a human shield, you have every right to protect your family, as long as you're doing your best not to hit the kid (as much as possible)

Again, Israel has no desire to see civilians die. it doesn't align with our values and it definitely doesn't serve any purpose for us. The only ones that benefit from civilian deaths are Hamas

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Andy9o8 0]

billvon

>so what would you do if I shoot at your family while hiding behind my kid?

I would get my family of harm's way as quickly as possible.

However, what you are probably asking is this:

"So what would you do if I shot at your family and there was no way for you to leave, and the only option you had was firing back at me?"

In that case, I would shoot back and try to hit you. If I hit your kid instead and killed him, then I would be responsible for his death, since I was the one who fired the gun. I'd have to decide if I was OK with that _before_ pulling the trigger.

Legally, at least by the standards of "common law" nations, that's not correct, Bill. While it's correct that your act was the final physical act that resulted in the child's death, as a matter of legality, the criminal would be legally guilty of Felony Murder, and you would probably not be legally guilty of any crime.

Kelp's analysis in his Post #68 is correct.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

"So what would you do if I shot at your family and there was no way for you to leave, and the only option you had was firing back at me?"

Han shot first.

And so did Hamas. If we're going to try to continue to use our law to describe this, it's the equivalent to two guys getting in a fight years ago, one guy bringing back a gun and shooting it at the other, and trying to claim Stand Your Ground as a legal defense.

It doesn't fucking matter (to me) if they think 1948 or 1967 was unfair. That is history. They initiated this confrontation and for reasons that escape me people pick their side because they're getting their ass kicked.

If you want to instead use a battered wife syndrome defense, that sounds fun. Case law is pretty muddled, however.

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

Legally, at least by the standards of "common law" nations, that's not correct, Bill. While it's correct that your act was the final physical act that resulted in the child's death, as a matter of legality, the criminal would be legally guilty of Felony Murder, and you would probably not be legally guilty of any crime.

Kelp's analysis in his Post #68 is correct.

Legally vs responsible vs morally are all very different things

I know you are making this point, I'm just on board


I'm in full agreement with Billvon in terms of how I viscerally feel about it (responsibility-wise and morally and about how makes the final 'choice') - I also agree with the legal position as well in terms of who is culpable for the result in terms of protecting society from others.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

rehmwa

***Legally, at least by the standards of "common law" nations, that's not correct, Bill. While it's correct that your act was the final physical act that resulted in the child's death, as a matter of legality, the criminal would be legally guilty of Felony Murder, and you would probably not be legally guilty of any crime.

Kelp's analysis in his Post #68 is correct.

Legally vs responsible vs morally are all very different things

I know you are making this point, I'm just on board


I'm in full agreement with Billvon in terms of how I viscerally feel about it (responsibility-wise and morally and about how makes the final 'choice') - I also agree with the legal position as well in terms of who is culpable for the result in terms of protecting society from others.

A partial response is that historically, laws generally tend to codify society's moral standards.
I don't have a complete response that works for me.