Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/12/10 09:16 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: I mean they're hated cause they're Jewish right? I think that'd be a slightly unfair comment, to say the least.

Not so much by Europe, although a big EU member recently said that all Jews are egotistical. I think it's because it's hard for Israel to play the victim (which it is) when it's the bigger power. It's like a lion with a thorn in its paw; the two are small in comparison but one thorn causes a lot of damage.

Plus, the Palestinians hate Israel because they are Jews. That and the belief that they took their land.

At 9/12/10 09:16 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Could not find any quotes that said Hamas was harmless. I'd like to know WHY you think Europe and American media hates Israel, though. Because of the big fat bribes Hamas are sending them? There's no financial or otherwise gain to be made, they could spin the story either way and sell the same amount of newspapers.

they can, but the 'liberals' will say they're naitonalists and liars and consider them biased. Why would they start saying the truth now if that means they need to lose their support and credibility? and why would 'liberals' change their opinion if that means they lose all their pro-palestinian financing?

I have seen Israeli representivies get 2-3 pages in my national newspapers trying to explain things such as the Floatilla Raid, but unfortunately no amount of air time or ink can really justify what is happening.

agreed, there is no justification for attacking soldiers.

At 9/12/10 12:52 PM, satanbrain wrote:

I have seen Israeli representivies get 2-3 pages in my national newspapers trying to explain things such as the Floatilla Raid, but unfortunately no amount of air time or ink can really justify what is happening.

agreed, there is no justification for attacking soldiers.

Exactly, so therefore if Israel has nothing to hide it would do the smart and honest thing and release the whole video of what happened rather then just showing what the flotilla members did.

At 9/12/10 02:09 PM, Warforger wrote:

Exactly, so therefore if Israel has nothing to hide it would do the smart and honest thing and release the whole video of what happened rather then just showing what the flotilla members did.

This, if they're so innocent where is the full footage?

While we're at it, can I see the wealthy Pro-Palestinian conglomerate you talk of? Probably the most high profile one in Ireland is Raymond Deane and he relies on royalties and selling CDs on his website for a living. I can't think of one government within Europe I could accuse of funding Hamas, I know Ireland has bought 100,000's in euros of old weaponry from Israel. I know no sanctions or restrictions have been levied on Israel. But other then the white phosphorous we smuggled on a small floatilla to Gaza I can't think of anything.

Oh wait, there wasn't any. I was mixing it up with the warehouses of White Phosphorous being kept in Israel military bases to be deployed en masse on Palestinian civilains. FYI, use of highly toxic and corrosive gasses is not considered adaquete avoidance of colateral damage- it's actualy called a war crime.

Mahmoud Abbas racism: "I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as Nato forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the Nato forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land."
Flotilla videos.
phosphore using in gaza war.

Floatilla - still a 7 minute video of what I think was an encounter that lasted several hours.

As for the fairly ambigous and indifferent article you sent me in which the Israeli Government says that they've never signed up to the agreements in which White Phosphorous use on crowds is illegal but didn't do do, I have this. Amnest Internation AND Human Rights Watch, 2 well known Hamas conspirators no doubt!

They are not terrorists against us so they are ok.

i do have this.

That statement was made in March 09, if they're so confident why did they never go public like this article said they would?

While they are not in legal terms incendiary weapons they were used to harm people through smoke inhalation and burns from being within the immediate vicinity of the explosion - White Phospohorous tends to stick to human skin and cause severe burning for elongated periods.

At 9/14/10 11:25 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: That statement was made in March 09, if they're so confident why did they never go public like this article said they would?

they do but the media is not publishing it.

White Phospohorous tends to stick to human skin and cause severe burning for elongated periods.

i never saw that video.

Well videos are found on youtube, so they're not very reliable. But if you want it.

At 9/14/10 12:16 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Well videos are found on youtube, so they're not very reliable. But if you want it.

i meant that i see smoke, but i don't see burns.

At 9/14/10 10:58 AM, satanbrain wrote: i do have this.

Oh. Yah Israel, a totally unbiased candidate to do an investigation to see if an event that would be really embarrassing to Israel happened or not.

At 9/14/10 07:52 PM, Warforger wrote: a totally unbiased candidate to do an investigation to see if an event that would be really embarrassing to Israel happened or not.

palestinians' testimonies, totally unbiased to do an investigation to see if an event that would be really embarrassing to palestine happened or not

At 9/15/10 12:39 AM, satanbrain wrote: palestinians' testimonies, totally unbiased to do an investigation to see if an event that would be really embarrassing to palestine happened or not

Never mind the fact that only one person here has been using official government sources of one side in the debate. Also just because you've pointed out that an official palestinian source has just as much reason to be biased doesn't excuse the fact that all you use is official israeli government sources and say "it's right because my government says it is and they know everything". Meanwhile everyone else has been using a pretty good variety of third party, independent sources...

Oh wait, I forgot, those sources are part of the "conspiracy"

I don't think so Israel is a terrorist country...because in these days terrorism spread all over the world.
This is the matter to worry.

At 9/14/10 03:13 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 9/14/10 12:16 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Well videos are found on youtube, so they're not very reliable. But if you want it.

i meant that i see smoke, but i don't see burns.

Here ya go then.

But I'm sure the Israeli foreign minister will gladly inform us that white phosphorous doesn't leave any marks as it's only used for lighting purposes...

At 9/15/10 08:51 AM, bcdemon wrote: Here ya go then.

But I'm sure the Israeli foreign minister will gladly inform us that white phosphorous doesn't leave any marks as it's only used for lighting purposes...

are those palestinans? have they been exposed to the same amount of white phosphorous as palestinians did?

At 9/15/10 02:16 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Meanwhile everyone else has been using a pretty good variety of third party, independent sources...

third party is not taking evidence from one side. independent sources do not making their news reliable by quoting each other.

At 9/15/10 11:30 AM, satanbrain wrote: third party is not taking evidence from one side. independent sources do not making their news reliable by quoting each other.

You keep forgetting that every time those same parties TRY to get the Israeli side they get told to fuck off and Israel refuses to cooperate. What can you do if you go to somebody and say "I'd like to get your side so I can balance this out" and they say "no chance, go away now"?

They're "one-sided" because Israel is actively making the choice to keep it that way.

At 9/15/10 11:30 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 9/15/10 02:16 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Meanwhile everyone else has been using a pretty good variety of third party, independent sources...

third party is not taking evidence from one side. independent sources do not making their news reliable by quoting each other.

It's not like the non-Israeli sources are just calling up the former office of Yassir Arafat and asking "So what have the Israelis done today?" Not all news has to come from a press release by one party or the other. The reason these sources are called third party is because they do their own research, or use research by unaffiliated groups. They have as little reason to side with the Palestinians as the Israelis.

I think this is a problem a lot of Israeli politicians have had; we're either with you or against you. There's no room for a third party. So anyone who doesn't agree completely, 100% with what the Israeli government says must be anti-Israeli. Israel is always right; therefore, Palestine must always be wrong.

At 9/15/10 04:50 PM, RWT wrote:

It's not like the non-Israeli sources are just calling up the former office of Yassir Arafat and asking "So what have the Israelis done today?"

If they did they wouldn't get a response. He's been dead quite some time!
Third-party groups aren't always third party groups. Many are committees that claim to be neutral, but aren't, like the Hague, which is very anti-American, or the ACLU, which is pro-everyone can speak, even Nazis, or the ADL, which is pro-Israel.
I think what people forget is that Israel is a democracy, while Hamas is a despotic dictatorship. Both sides have done wrong, but one is a republic with religious freedom, and the other is an absolutist theocracy. It's easy to play the Palestinian side, because it's based on feelings and emotions. It's easy to get sucked into the small guy vs. the large guy. People are predisposed to think that the small guy is right, but that's not so in the case.

I think this is a problem a lot of Israeli politicians have had; we're either with you or against you. There's no room for a third party.

Yes, to a certain point. But it's hard to sound neutral without sounding apathetic or wishy-washy. And plus, I find that the more I learn about a situation, the more sided I get.

At 9/15/10 02:41 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You keep forgetting that every time those same parties TRY to get the Israeli side they get told to fuck off and Israel refuses to cooperate. What can you do if you go to somebody and say "I'd like to get your side so I can balance this out" and they say "no chance, go away now"?

israel doesn't cooperates with politically motivated investigations.

They're "one-sided" because Israel is actively making the choice to keep it that way.

they are making to choice to investigate themselves.

At 9/16/10 12:42 AM, satanbrain wrote: israel doesn't cooperates with politically motivated investigations.

Unless they're conducted by Israel themselves.

they are making to choice to investigate themselves.

Right, because there's no chance they'd skew anything to favor themselves. My god...it's like saying "you know who should investigate abuse claims at Gitmo? Dick Cheney and George Bush!" either you're functionally retarded, or willfully ignorant if you can't see the neon signs of "danger danger" in letting a government investigate whether or not it's committed abuses and then being willing to just believe whatever they conclude.

Yes, some of those pics were of Palestinian people.

At 9/16/10 12:42 AM, satanbrain wrote: they are making to choice to investigate themselves.

Would you be ok if the world allowed Hamas to investigate Hamas crimes?

Only seems fair right, Israelis investigate Israelis, Hamas investigates Hamas, everyone is happy.

Right?

At 9/15/10 09:37 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

Third-party groups aren't always third party groups. Many are committees that claim to be neutral, but aren't, like the Hague, which is very anti-American, or the ACLU, which is pro-everyone can speak, even Nazis, or the ADL, which is pro-Israel.

Well they are third party groups, they just have an agenda. Everyone does, you're not researching this to find articles which sympathise with Palestine. That's just human nature.

I think what people forget is that Israel is a democracy, while Hamas is a despotic dictatorship.

Irrelevant statement, being a democracy does not improve your chances of being in the right.

Both sides have done wrong, but one is a republic with religious freedom, and the other is an absolutist theocracy.

Again, moralism.

It's easy to play the Palestinian side, because it's based on feelings and emotions. It's easy to get sucked into the small guy vs. the large guy. People are predisposed to think that the small guy is right, but that's not so in the case.

Not everyone vouches for the underdog, as you yourself have proved. Both sides are emotionaly weighted as it's a conflict. Your problem here is you can relate to the Israeli people better than the Palestinians. I'd hardly call Israel, a Jewish nation, a country of total religious freedom. There is a state religion and that does effect the lives of the people.

But for all the "Appeal to emotion" that you feel is going on here, I've yet to see any proof that would say otherwise... Apart from the MFA.gov links Satanbrain has been using. Going back to Israels policy of not interacting with external media: Internal investagations are not adaquete action as there's no transparency or neccesity for action, the Catholic Church has been "internaly investagating" Child abuse claims for 20 years. What fucking good has that done?

At 9/16/10 01:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 9/16/10 12:42 AM, satanbrain wrote: israel doesn't cooperates with politically motivated investigations.

Unless they're conducted by Israel themselves.

israel is investigating to act better the next time it act. if you find hamas's expert investigators, they will be just fine.

they are making to choice to investigate themselves.

or willfully ignorant if you can't see the neon signs of "danger danger" in letting a government investigate whether or not it's committed abuses and then being willing to just believe whatever they conclude.

and letting terrorists countries in the UN investiagte their own results of financing terror is not "danger danger".

At 9/16/10 03:03 PM, satanbrain wrote: israel is investigating to act better the next time it act. if you find hamas's expert investigators, they will be just fine.

You hope anyway...you think you've refuted my point but you haven't. How can we expect someone to investigate their own potential human rights violations and expect they'll come back with anything more then "you know....MAYBE we did something...but probably not...anyway...we'll do better next time...swears". Also you act like I wouldn't have a problem with Hamas or anybody else doing this. Which is laughable since I used an example of the past administration of my own country. I don't trust ANY government ANYWHERE to investigate it's own human rights violations. That's why we created things like the UN or the Geneva Convention in the first place.

and letting terrorists countries in the UN investiagte their own results of financing terror is not "danger danger".

No one should be investigating themselves. That's my whole point. You don't let a country investigate itself and just abide by the results, there's just no impetus them for them not to just be able to say "yeah, it's all good here, nothing to see. Move on". That's WHY we push for outside investigations by as many parties as possible. You bitch about the agendas of others, then act like Israel would handle an investigation into itself completely agenda free. The hypocrisy of that is stunning.

At 9/16/10 03:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

You hope anyway...you think you've refuted my point but you haven't. How can we expect someone to investigate their own potential human rights violations...

Because its very hard to do a coverup in a democracy with a free press. There are a lot of people involved in coordinating an artillery strike. If there were an unofficial policy of using it as a chemical weapon, adopted by every commander and known by all the army officers (who would request the smoke shield), don't you think it would have leaked by now? If the soldiers wanted to kill civilians, wouldn't it just be easier to say that they were taking fire from a building and call an airstrike? Are they so sadistic that they want the Palestinians to live with nasty burns?

There really isn't any substitute for an internal investigation; civilians are in the worst position to know what is going on and third parties will never have the authority to get the whole story.

Also, don't be too quick to dismiss government sources from a democracy. They can't get away with lying outright for very long, and the way statements are phrased can say a lot about what the government wants the reader to believe or ignore.

At 9/16/10 03:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You hope anyway...you think you've refuted my point but you haven't. How can we expect someone to investigate their own potential human rights violations and expect they'll come back with anything more then "you know....MAYBE we did something...but probably not...anyway...we'll do better next time...swears". Also you act like I wouldn't have a problem with Hamas or anybody else doing this. Which is laughable since I used an example of the past administration of my own country. I don't trust ANY government ANYWHERE to investigate it's own human rights violations. That's why we created things like the UN or the Geneva Convention in the first place.

i know you liberals hate the west and their countries. don't try to brag about it. have the UN you created prevented 5 arabian armies to invade israel the first day it was created? is Geneva Convention applying everyone or just israel?

No one should be investigating themselves. That's my whole point. You don't let a country investigate itself and just abide by the results, there's just no impetus them for them not to just be able to say "yeah, it's all good here, nothing to see. Move on". That's WHY we push for outside investigations by as many parties as possible. You bitch about the agendas of others, then act like Israel would handle an investigation into itself completely agenda free. The hypocrisy of that is stunning.

The UN act like it cares about human rights, yet it lets human rights violator dictatorships being part of the human rights council. you say that every anti-israeli source is outside and every pro-israeli source is biased. The hypocrisy of that is stunning.

At 9/17/10 12:42 AM, satanbrain wrote: i know you liberals hate the west and their countries. don't try to brag about it.

Huh? Dude, I live in the west, I love my country...but loving my country isn't the same as believing my country is perfect. Nor is my criticism of Israel automatically identifying me as in the Palestinian camp. They're fucking up on this one too. The points I'm making would be the exact same points if you were saying the exact same things but saying "palestine" instead of "israel". But it's no secret I think we should be holding a legitimate nation, with UN membership and recognized international standing to a higher standard then one that has really no "official" standing with same.

have the UN you created prevented 5 arabian armies to invade israel the first day it was created? is Geneva Convention applying everyone or just israel?

Geneva Convention is absolutely supposed to apply to everyone...or at least everyone that signed onto it. Pretty sure it's everyone that signed on. I've been critical of my own nations violations of that document as well as I believe acts of torture, terrorism, or other such acts are completely immoral and unwarranted in a civilized society. You can't fight evil with evil tactics lest you completely lose the moral high ground and just become a more powerful evil yourself.

Also you once again fail to understand what the UN does. The UN doesn't send out an armed response to the things you're talking about (that comes from coalitions by member nations. Like Iraq for example where a coalition of American and British forces invaded, but the rest of the UN chose to sit out) they can however inspect and put sanctions on nations that might be a potential or known problem child (see Iran). The UN doesn't have a great amount of power because it is not meant to act as some sort of world government or police force. It's more about peacekeeping and diplomacy.

The UN act like it cares about human rights, yet it lets human rights violator dictatorships being part of the human rights council.

Like which ones?

you say that every anti-israeli source is outside and every pro-israeli source is biased. The hypocrisy of that is stunning.

Again, you're not understanding or reading what I'm saying. I'm not saying every anti-source would be outside or unbiased. In fact an "anti-israeli" source WOULD be biased, but a source is not "anti-Israeli" just because it doesn't agree with Israel and the story it presents. You complain about dictatorships but that is how dictatorships operate "every source that doesn't agree is against us!". I just don't trust the "official" sources to be the be and end all because even in a democracy the government can and does get up to shady illegal shit they'd rather not get out there and that's why a free press is so important.

I invite you to look over my posts again and see where I pointed out that a official Hamas government source would be suspect to me as well. Or the statements of The White House bear scrutiny to me. I see what doc said above me, and he makes a decent point, but I'm still not willing to buy into and have the kind of faith he does in the "party line" because I've seen so much blatant corruption and bullshit pulled on the citizenry of many nations that I firmly believe there must be other independent sources investigating to keep the process honest.