Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/6/10 05:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/6/10 05:32 PM, zcult wrote: "They are a terrorists." If you were Palestinian, would you still be against Hamas? You say they're terrorists as if they are in the same situation as America or Israel, applying the same moral standards. Palestinians are being tortured by Israeli troops, bombed with skin burning chemicals all while their rightful land is being denied to them. Any sane person would react like Hamas and the Palestinians in the face of such oppression.

they are terrorists just elected because they "promised to destroy israel"

And if you were a palestinian living in Palestine, you wouldn't vote for Hamas?

When Israel is killing more civilians and children than Hamas could dream of, you are calling Hamas the terrorists? They are not the ones using illegal chemicals on civilians.

At 7/6/10 05:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/6/10 05:32 PM, zcult wrote: It doesn't make a fucking difference that they don't "target" civilians. Mass civilians and children get killed by Israeli weapons. Who cares if they didn't mean to kill? They are still doing it! That is shameless. I didn't mean to shoot your child in the face, so it's okay.

collateral. war is ugly get over it israel is defending itself. they didn't provoke this. Hamas and hezbollah were the ones who shot rockets first.

Actually no, Israel are the ones who broke the cease fire. Besides that Israel are the ones who started shooting last time, I wouldn't call it self defense when they have their foot on the necks of the Palestinians.

At 7/6/10 05:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/6/10 05:32 PM, zcult wrote: This is plainly illegal. Palestine has the right to much land Israel is occupying.

not true Israel was part of the British Mandate a British Territory conquered after the Ottomans participated in WW1 and loss as negotiations went on britain got the israel/west bank/gaza region and after WWII the UN gave the Jews Israel to start their own democratic nation. Perfectly Legal.

Under current internation law, Israel is on occupied Palestinian territory. I'm not talking about the right or non-right. I'm talking about the law. And the law says that Israel has to give land to the Palestinians that are rightly there, but instead they are settling in those areas, and depriving Palestinians of basic resources. That is illegal.

At 7/6/10 02:26 AM, Musician wrote:

At 7/5/10 01:53 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel as an occupier is legally bound to provide adequate medical and food supplies to the Gazan people, which according to the UN they haven't.

Except it isn't occupying Gaza. It is blockading it. The primary responsibility for the Gazans' welfare lies with the Hamas government.

Strict bans on certain kinds of food has led to an unbalanced Gazan diet, which has caused a series of nutritional disorders throughout the population. Hospitals are in high demand but low supply.

I can't find any news article that says Israel has taken away certain foods from UN aid convoys. Do you have a link?

There's about 133 hospital beds for every 100,000 people, and that number may be lower now since the IDF has a major hardon for blowing up hospitals.

And according to reports, only about 40 people have died due to medical problems that somehow involve the blockade. That is not a humanitarian disaster.

Electricity, which is used to power refrigerators, air conditioners, ovens, and other necessary utilities has been severely restricted and rationed by the IDF.

Electricity is not a necessary utility. People do not need it (or air conditioners or refrigerators for that matter, to survive.

And of course the targeted attacks on their economy through the banning of seeds, fishing nets, etc has insured that the entire region is becoming increasingly dependent on Israeli aid.

Sucks for them, doesn't it? Maybe they should put some pressure on their democratically elected government to give in to some of the Israeli demands so their lives will improve.

The unfunny part is that those who demand Israel drop the blockade are essentially defending Hamas's right to commit violent acts against Israel and abduct its soldiers.

How is rightfully calling out Israel for it's deliberate attacks on the people of palestine in any way relate to defending Hamas? Lets say, for example, that israel bends to international pressure and begins allowing seeds and fishing nets back into Gaza. What then?

Then the entire Hamas strategy of waiting out the blockade has succeeded. The propaganda victory for a terrorist organization is enormous, as it has just shown it can launch attacks and keep Israelis hostage with impunity. And every one of the Gazans will believe them .

therefore Israel is completely justified in complete obliterating a countries economy, leaving many in horrible living conditions? It sounds like an argument you'd make.

How convenient of you to leave out Hamas' responsibility in this affair.
Hamas has to agree to three conditions (two really) for all the suffering of their people to end.
Renounce violence against Israel (return to a default state of peace).
Release Shalit.
Recognize the state of Israel (given the complications, it was probably included just to be set aside, allowing Hamas to save face and say that it didn't give up in its struggle to recover "Palestinian land")
These are not outrageous demands. They do not require any relinquishing of sovereignty or autonomy, or any kind of humiliation that no country would ever agree to in any circumstances.
By blaming Israel, you implicitly assume that it's entirely out of the question that Hamas should ever agree to these terms. Seeing as those terms are "peace" and "release your hostages" you apparently approve of unmitigated aggression and kidnapping.

And you think I'm the heartless one.

Hamas did denounce both of those things in the past. During the ceasefire that was recently broken by Israel, Hamas didn't launch a single rocket, nor kidnap a single Israeli, even the Israeli government acknowledges this. Contrary to popular belief in the US, it was not Hamas who broke the cease fire, but rather Israel who invaded Gaza and killed 6 members of Hamas on Nov 4th 2008.

And do you know why they invaded? "Yes, just to be aggressive bastards. They enjoy spending the money on F-15 sorties and smart bombs. That, and their plan is to slowly kill off all the Gazans in three-person collateral damage strikes. "
Believe it or not, Hamas was building another tunnel, not far from the Israeli border, HEADED to the Israeli border. Do you how Israel heard about this? From a captured SUICIDE BOMBER (these details are from memory and I can't find the exact links).
Hamas even admitted that the tunnel existed, except they claimed it was for "geological research" or some crap.
After that, I don't blame the Israelis for not wasting time with another temporary cease-fire. Perhaps if Hamas had agreed to release Shalit in the first place, the Israelis would not have been so suspicious of another possible tunnel.

Because under the Fourth Geneva conventions, of which Israel is a signatory, they do. And besides that think of the moral argument you're making.

The moral argument is "don't start shit with Israel because they don't give a damn about you or your people."
Israel and the US (i.e. two of the few remaining countries with balls when it comes to confronting Islamic terrorism) should seriously consider withdrawing from the Geneva conventions. Its articles have been distorted over the decades to mean that nations must abide by them even if their opponents do not.
Hell, it wouldn't even matter in a conventional war if we withdrew from the conventions. If our enemies were still signatories they would be bound to abide by the convention so long as we followed its articles in practice. It would sure be a lot simpler.

If today, in America, an elementary school was taken over by terrorists, how would we respond to the situation? Would we carpet bomb the building killing everyone inside?

Wow, two sentences and your analogy already turns to shit.
First of all, get this through your head: As an American, there is no other national more valuable or important than another American. If I had to choose to save any other random person in the world or an American, I would choose the American every single time. And that's not because Americans or special or anything; I would expect everyone else to do the same for their nationality.
It is the basic premise behind every single aspect of international relations and conflict, and if you look past the faux global citizenry spiel you'd see it, too.

Should a thousand Palestinian homes be demolished if it means that one additional Israeli will be saved?

If it is in response to Palestinian aggression, then absolutely. Malcolm X said it best: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."
Ghandi can run his mouth all he wants about the blind world so long as he keeps his hands off Malcolm X.
And for god's sake, if you have no military and your sworn enemy can cut off all your food, trade, and electricity in a single stroke, maybe you should reconsider the wisdom of making him your enemy.

It's is through this line of thinking that many denounce Israels actions against Gaza. Because the situation in Gaza, which borders outright genocide;

Just when you start making a halfway interesting remark you say something from way out there like this.
Incidentally, I'd be careful who you say this to; some Tutsis might call you out on that, not to mention some of the older Jews.

At 7/6/10 11:51 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: plus israel doesn't use human shields unlike the "gentle" palestinians.

Oh, so tying a 13 year old to the hood of your IDF armored vehicle so his friends won't throw stones isn't a human shield? Ok gotcha.

plus Israel's strike are 200% more accurate causing far less civillian casualties than Hamas rockets.

WOOOOOW are you ever wacked, or blinded by bias.
Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. As of January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries

28 Israeli deaths from over 8600 rockets. In the last Israeli incursion into Gaza, over a thousand Palestinian people died in less than a month. The IDF killed more in one month than Hamas did in 10 freaking years.

for every 10 terrorist killed one civilian dies when israel attacks.

Got Source?

At 7/6/10 08:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: nope Gaza was shooting rockets into israel or are we not talking about the 2006 conflict?

I was talking about 2008-2009. :[

At 7/6/10 08:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/6/10 06:10 PM, zcult wrote:

maybe but israel doesn't go on a rampage like hamas does targeting hospitals and other civilian infrastructure in cold blood. and there is no OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED use of chemical weapons

Rampaging lunatic is the exact phrase I would describe Israel. How about when Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982, out of sheer retarded anger?

At 7/6/10 08:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: maybe but israel doesn't go on a rampage like hamas does targeting hospitals and other civilian infrastructure in cold blood. and there is no OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED use of chemical weapons

Look up white phosphorus and Israel in google.

At 7/6/10 08:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but thats just what it is a territory not a country plus the settlements are not illegal and the occupation is not illegal,

Under international law it is. The settlements AND the occupation of Palestinian land.

At 7/6/10 08:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

:and views the territory as being the subject of legitimate diplomatic dispute and negotiation under international law.

No,

The international court has ruled that the arab half of Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians and that Israelis are currently expanding settlements on Palestinian territory.

Israel is not in compliance with international law. It is refusing to recognize the state of Palestine, even though the Palestinians have the right to self determination just as much as the Israelis. It is breaking the law, and killing innocent lives, including children. It is spilling blood, and it is my opinion that it will only hurt the Jews in the long run.

The only reason Hamas exists is because they insist on bullying the Palestinians into leaving. By bullying I mean killing their children and making their life a living hell until they leave, and then not allowing them to come back, even though the amount that want to return is reasonable.

At 7/6/10 10:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: still legal the white phosphorus was used for making the shells and was burned up.

You're so full of shit it's not even funny

"Numerous reports from human right groups during the war indicated that white phosphorus shells were being used by Israel in violation of international law.[24][25][26] Human Rights Watch said shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded Palestinian refugee camp[27] and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge."

At 7/7/10 12:00 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: othe use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)
evidence showed that the buildings hit by white phosphorus were being used by Palestinian militants, and were therefore legitimate military targets.[50] The Israeli government report further stated that smoke screening projectiles were the marority of the munitions containing white phosphorus employed by the IDF and that these were very effective in that role. The report states that at no time did IDF forces have the objective of inflicting any harm on the civilian population.

the whole place was a warzone therefore LEGAL sorry.

Wrong again

There are multiple international laws that could be seen regulate WP use [3]. Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'.The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.

White phosphorus was used against civilians, in populated civilian areas, which is a clear violation of international law.

At 7/6/10 05:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: collateral. war is ugly get over it israel is defending itself. they didn't provoke this. Hamas and hezbollah were the ones who shot rockets first.

I wouldn't single out Hezbollah, they targeted Israeli ACV's on the border of Lebanon, they also claim Israel broke the ceasefire not them, which isn't far-fetched considering the Southern Pro-Israel paramilitaries who were present during the Lebanese civil war. Moreover, I've gotten the impression that out of all the pro-Palestinian sides Hezbollah tends to be the better of them, providing humanitarian aide, not attacking civilian targets, thus internationally Israel has had only success with the US to recognize the whole organization as terrorist, others like Britain and Australia only recognize the military aspects, others like Russia don't consider them terrorist at all, even then Hezbollah condemned 9/11 kicking them off the terrorist list in the US until 2003.

At 7/6/10 05:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: not true Israel was part of the British Mandate a British Territory conquered after the Ottomans participated in WW1 and loss as negotiations went on britain got the israel/west bank/gaza region and after WWII the UN gave the Jews Israel to start their own democratic nation. Perfectly Legal.

Yah but currently the easiest solution to the conflict seems to just wait until the Palestinians ethnic cleanse themselves from the land to the point where they are forced to accept the Israeli's due to becoming a minority.

At 7/7/10 12:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: ahh but the the buildings they targeted had Millitants in it thus were military targets plus law only applies to nations and verified armed forces and if you read

The Israeli army says that it hit schools because they had people firing. Is it possible that there were Hamas fighters shooting from inside this school?

"Absolutely not," they said. "There were definitely no militants in here. People were sleeping. There was no gunfire."

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons"

I worked with these smokescreens in basic training also since they are not to nations but one is in fact a millitant movement international laws are kind of out the window. but of course you could interpet this in any way you want so Israel got a way with it Scott free because of liberal interpetation.

The school authorities have been gathering up some of the shrapnel and the shell casings of what hit the school in the incident of the 17th of January. This bit of wrecked metal here is, believe it or not, the remains of one of the four phosphorous bombs which exploded over the school, burning some of the children.

This big thing here is either a tank shell or an artillery piece. This is what hit the balcony just up there, killing two small children and blowing the legs off their 19-year-old cousin.

I think it's pretty clear there was no militants in the school, and the artillery was intended to do much more than create a smoke screen
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_ea st/jan-june09/ceasefire_01-19.html

At 7/7/10 12:38 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh please the testimony of a shell shocked and malnurished palestinian is shaky at best.

You mean the people running the UN primary school?

At 7/7/10 12:43 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 7/7/10 12:38 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh please the testimony of a shell shocked and malnurished palestinian is shaky at best.

You mean the people running the UN primary school?

let's just take em at their word, shall we?

At 7/6/10 09:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/6/10 08:57 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 7/6/10 11:51 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: plus israel doesn't use human shields unlike the "gentle" palestinians.

Oh, so tying a 13 year old to the hood of your IDF armored vehicle so his friends won't throw stones isn't a human shield? Ok gotcha.

alright Isolated incident what they did was wrong and against the geneva convention.

Yes you're right, this was probably the ONLY time Israel EVER did this right?

WOOOOOW are you ever wacked, or blinded by bias.
Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. As of January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries

better source than wikipedia?

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/app s/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997 &ct=3887857

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7 818022.stm - half way down the page.

28 Israeli deaths from over 8600 rockets. In the last Israeli incursion into Gaza, over a thousand Palestinian people died in less than a month. The IDF killed more in one month than Hamas did in 10 freaking years.

source please.

Your sources for the Israelis killed by rockets are above, here is one showing the Palestinian deaths in the last idf incursion:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?i d=ENGMDE150212009

Extremely high precision weapons used by the IDF "which does not target civilians" killed more civilians than Hamas does "when they target civilians" with their unguided rockets.
Sounds confusing doesn't it?

At 7/7/10 09:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: Extremely high precision weapons used by the IDF "which does not target civilians" killed more civilians than Hamas does "when they target civilians" with their unguided rockets.
Sounds confusing doesn't it?

Tony may give Israel supporters a bad name, but don't oversimplify the issue simply because he's too sloppy to call you out on it.
You know as well as I do that when people are around a target, there's a good chance they will get hurt when it is destroyed. With dozens or hundreds of targets, there's good chance that a couple of the shots will miss. Gaza is very densely populated.

At 7/7/10 07:59 PM, adrshepard wrote:

You know as well as I do that when people are around a target, there's a good chance they will get hurt when it is destroyed. With dozens or hundreds of targets, there's good chance that a couple of the shots will miss. Gaza is very densely populated.

If Gaza is that densely populated, then Israel needs to take more precise measures to take out targets in order to minimize casualties.

At 7/7/10 08:36 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 7/7/10 07:59 PM, adrshepard wrote:

You know as well as I do that when people are around a target, there's a good chance they will get hurt when it is destroyed. With dozens or hundreds of targets, there's good chance that a couple of the shots will miss. Gaza is very densely populated.

If Gaza is that densely populated, then Israel needs to take more precise measures to take out targets in order to minimize casualties.

we risk our soldiers life, we do everything to minimize it. you think that if we wanted we couldn't wipe out entire gaza?

Tony, love, you can't win an arguement just by playing the sceptic. I haven't seen you prove a word you've said. Someone can post links to snuff films and have a more reasonable, coherent and well sourced arguement than the one you're spewing out.

ie: I don't trust army nuts.

At 7/8/10 05:02 AM, satanbrain wrote: we risk our soldiers life, we do everything to minimize it.

LOL. Look up the "Dahiya doctrine" on google.

At 7/9/10 09:10 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: ie: I don't trust army nuts.

and i don't trust terrorists! you prefer to believe lying terrorists than an army.

At 7/7/10 07:59 PM, adrshepard wrote: You know as well as I do that when people are around a target, there's a good chance they will get hurt when it is destroyed. With dozens or hundreds of targets, there's good chance that a couple of the shots will miss. Gaza is very densely populated.

I agree, when civilians are near military targets during war time they will either be killed or injured. Just for the record, a UN school is normally not considered a military target, unless of course the military in question is the IDF, then anything they bomb is reported (by them) to have militants in it.
We know this isn't the first time the IDF has targeted a civilian structure, now will it be the last.

At 7/9/10 11:57 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 7/9/10 09:10 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: ie: I don't trust army nuts.

and i don't trust terrorists! you prefer to believe lying terrorists than an army.

IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot
"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on.We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. [...] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

There you have it. I emphasized the important parts so you didn't miss them.

I like the way you used "lying" before terrorists. Shows you really look at this objectively.

Have you ever considered that the military quite like fighting?

Or that Hamas would actualy consider their military aspects to be an army of freedom fighters who happen to be using Guerilla Warefare?

The people of Gaza and Israel certainly don't seem to fear Hamas, so I think calling them terrorists is incorrect. Their objective is not to strike fear into the people (Terrorists = Commiting acts to incite fear. Get it?) but to stop the Israeli occupation.

But Terrorist is the buzzword of the early 21st Centuary, it's lost all meaning. I think more government bodies (Looking at you, America) are guilty of Terrorism than 3rd party militant groups.

I'm not saying I advocate Hamas governance or violence. I'm not saying they're Gaza's big hope. I'm saying two wrongs don't make a right.

At 7/10/10 09:35 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: The people of Gaza and Israel certainly don't seem to fear Hamas, so I think calling them terrorists is incorrect. Their objective is not to strike fear into the people (Terrorists = Commiting acts to incite fear. Get it?) but to stop the Israeli occupation.

causing people to hide in shelters for 8 years is inciting fear!