Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/22/09 11:21 AM, sora-key wrote: If less then 10 Israelis die then that's the price to pay for Hamas retaliating against the raid Israel held a month before Hamas "broke" the ceasefire.

;;;;;
Dear sweet sora-key, you leave out the point of Hamas had kidnapped a soldier & were attempting to kidnap/kill/maim anyone they could which led to that action. But I don't mind you leaving out any of the 'little' facts that might cause your straw house to blow over.

As for putting those I care about, above anyone else...I have absolutely no problems with that, even if you consider it a Flaw in me & will never appologise for that .

Report: Hamas Lied About Gaza Casualties

Italian journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi, who works with the Corriere della serra newspaper, reported Thursday that Hamas had vastly overstated the number of civilian deaths in Gaza. While Hamas claims that 1,330 residents of Gaza were killed in the operation and approximately 5,000 wounded, the real number of casualties was far lower, Cremonesi says.

Cremonesi's report was based on his own findings after touring hospitals in Gaza and talking to families of those killed or wounded. "It is sufficient to visit several [Gaza] hospitals to understand that the numbers don't add up," he explained.

Cremonesi estimated that between 500 to 600 people were killed in the fighting. Most were young men between the ages of 17 and 23 who were members of Hamas, he said.

Many hospitals had several empty beds, he reported. Hamas has stated that Gaza hospitals are filled to capacity due to the large number of victims, with many of the wounded being turned away due to the shortage of doctors and supplies.

The Italian report also confirmed Israeli allegations that Hamas had used civilians as human shields and used ambulances and United Nations buildings in the fighting. Those who tried to drive the terrorists away in order to protect their families were beaten.

Civilians told Cremonesi that they shouted at Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists to leave the area to avoid drawing Israeli fire on civilians. The terrorists responded by calling them "traitors," "collaborators" and "cowards," and insisted that any civilians killed would be martyrs destined for paradise.

Civilians also reported that Hamas terrorists disguised themselves as paramedics and drove ambulances during the fighting. In addition, terrorists launched rockets from UN buildings. Many of these actions are defined as war crimes.

"The knew they were weaker, but they wanted them [the Israelis] to fire on our houses, so they could accuse them of war crimes," a resident of the Gazan village Tel Awa explained.

Cremonesi said it was difficult to gather evidence against Hamas because residents were fearful. Civilians feared that if it was known they spoke against the group, they would be harshly punished, he explained.

Eisenberg: Many Didn't Know Their Homes were Booby-Trapped
Gaza Division Commander Brig.-Gen. Eyal Eisenberg reported on Thursday that Hamas had booby-trapped the homes of many civilians without their knowledge.

Many Gaza civilians were surprised to find explosives hidden under their houses, Eisenberg said, and noted that Hamas had placed roadside bombs throughout the area as well.

The injustice done to Israel is horrible.

At 1/22/09 07:22 AM, Elfer wrote: For example, if operatives are hiding inside a hospital, it's usually not considered justification for an aerial strike on the hospital, civilians and all.

Oh my, I'm so sorry. I'll make sure that next time we try and eliminate radical terrorists we'll knock first and ask if they could please step away from the nice sick people so we could just kill them.

They'll agree, right? It's only polite, and I've never seen a Hamas soldier being disobedient to polite requests.

Dear sweet sora-key, you leave out the point of Hamas had kidnapped a soldier & were attempting to kidnap/kill/maim anyone they could which led to that action. But I don't mind you leaving out any of the 'little' facts that might cause your straw house to blow over.

Israel speculated that they were planning to, and your telling me Israel wasn't already planning for another conflict?

i wont even reply to your comment because your sig clearly shows that you dont have an opened mind about the situation

thats to zoorule,
forgot to quote

At 1/22/09 11:55 AM, sora-key wrote: Israel speculated that they were planning to, and your telling me Israel wasn't already planning for another conflict?

;;;;;;;;;
Israel has made it's intentions very clear.
Israel, notified by phone & by leaflet's where it intended to attack.
Hamas are using their own people as Hostages.
You want to be a supporter of that , then that makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

This in no way means the people who do not support Hamas should be lumped in with them, but they are hooligans of the highest order. IMO Israel should go into Gaza, right at the front gate & allow any Palestinian & all memebers of the family to come forward, make their complaints against Hamas, put the family in PC & continue that until no one else shows up. Then blow the F^(# out of the whole area.

Then get all the displaced Palestinians in PC & help then to rebuild their homes, business's.

Just ask yourself ...Why do Hamas fighters always mask themselves...even in their own territory?
Because they are not just terrorizing Israeli's they are terrorizing Palestinians as well.

And you with your infinate knowledge condone that...you should be the one ashamed, not I.

At 1/22/09 11:54 AM, Phantom wrote: Oh my, I'm so sorry. I'll make sure that next time we try and eliminate radical terrorists we'll knock first and ask if they could please step away from the nice sick people so we could just kill them.

They'll agree, right? It's only polite, and I've never seen a Hamas soldier being disobedient to polite requests.

Kind of like how we deal with hostage situations by just killing the hostage-taker AND the hostage, right? I mean, obviously the person doesn't plan on letting the hostage go, so there must be no other alternative.

At 1/22/09 04:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/22/09 11:54 AM, Phantom wrote: Oh my, I'm so sorry. I'll make sure that next time we try and eliminate radical terrorists we'll knock first and ask if they could please step away from the nice sick people so we could just kill them.

They'll agree, right? It's only polite, and I've never seen a Hamas soldier being disobedient to polite requests.

Kind of like how we deal with hostage situations by just killing the hostage-taker AND the hostage, right? I mean, obviously the person doesn't plan on letting the hostage go, so there must be no other alternative.

I wonder if hostage takers can be extended to include the victims of a religious autocracy, held by fundamentalist fucks who won't bother to seperate their child from their arsenals of war.

Civilians are tools for hammas to use as it sees fit

BTW if the enemy is using a civilian structure for purposes other than what it was meant for, that makes it a legitimate target. So, for example...
If hammas lobs rockets from someone's house, the house is a legit target.
If hammas uses a mosque as an ammuntion depot, the mosque is a legit target.
If hammas fires anti-tank weapons from a school, the school is a legit target.
If hammas is using tunnels to move weapons and equipment, those tunnels are legit targets.

Get the picture?

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article .php?pg=11&ar=2542
read all of it and maybe youll see another side to the story, although i dont think anyone will read all of it....

At 1/23/09 12:37 AM, TimeLordX wrote: BTW if the enemy is using a civilian structure for purposes other than what it was meant for, that makes it a legitimate target. So, for example...

See what you did here? You provided examples rather than justification.

At 1/23/09 09:38 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/23/09 12:37 AM, TimeLordX wrote: BTW if the enemy is using a civilian structure for purposes other than what it was meant for, that makes it a legitimate target. So, for example...

See what you did here? You provided examples rather than justification.

Actually I provided both. The rules of war clearly state that if the enemy (i.e. hammas) is using civilian structures for purposes other than what those structures were built for, that makes it a legitimate target. Which hammas had done throughout the recent conflict. Hammas DID use mosques to store ammo. It DID lob rockets into Israel from people's homes. Therefore, those actions made those structures MILITARY targets, which Israel had every right to respond to with military force. That response is made more difficult by the fact that Israel made every effort to avoid civilian casualties, whereas hammas doesn't seem to give a damn about civilians on either side.

The only civilians in Israel are the kids.

"Palestine" doesn't have "citizens" because their "leadership" can't "get along" with it's neighbors.

At 1/24/09 12:35 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The only civilians in Israel are the kids.

"Palestine" doesn't have "citizens" because their "leadership" can't "get along" with it's neighbors.

I read your message like eight times and i didn't understand a thing.

I think I will go all "Foaming mouth idealist" over this thread. Humans are Humans and should all be treated with dignity and respect. This, I hope, is something both Israel, Palestine and the supporters of either side ought to understand. Remember that I said it applies to everybody involved, not just the one side.

At 1/24/09 12:42 PM, Doonie wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:35 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The only civilians in Israel are the kids.

"Palestine" doesn't have "citizens" because their "leadership" can't "get along" with it's neighbors.

I read your message like eight times and i didn't understand a thing.

This seems to be the message that a lot of unquestioningly pro-Israeli people say, that the Palestine doesn't actually have civilians because Hamas loves to attack Israel. Thus it doesn't matter if a 13-year old girl gets shot just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, she was a militant!

Or it could mean you aren't an Israeli citizen without having serving in the military for what is it, 2 years?

Alot of pro-terrorist-actions people like to feign senses of justice while armchair quarterbacking a war that's been raging for eternity.

But hey, don't let me think for you guys.

At 1/24/09 12:42 PM, Doonie wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:35 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The only civilians in Israel are the kids.

"Palestine" doesn't have "citizens" because their "leadership" can't "get along" with it's neighbors.

I read your message like eight times and i didn't understand a thing.

When you arm someone and tell them to fight for their country, they become a citizen (barring detrimental service). You do not gain Israeli citizenship without serving. Israel does not arm children.

The logic would follow if you gave it a chance, but I'm more than happy to explain. Shit, I know my thoughts aren't even clear to me sometimes.

so no one read the article? I found it to present a lot of information that isn't heard enough

At 1/24/09 10:28 PM, sora-key wrote: so no one read the article? I found it to present a lot of information that isn't heard enough

I find it one sided and unworthy of the band width it occupies. But that's just my opinion.

Israel Protects Soldiers from War Crimes Charges.

Hmm, just like Bush did with the US Service Member Protection Act. See how this will work in history, Israel shields its soldiers from war crimes charges, therefor there can be no war crime charges, therefor no war crimes. Just accusations.

The military (IDF) ordered local and foreign journalist to blur IDF commanders faces for fear they could be identified and arrested if traveling abroad.

This is what makes the UN useless, in order to charge an Israeli with war crimes, the UN Security Council has to vote for such action, and we all know the US would veto such votes.

At 1/25/09 10:17 AM, bcdemon wrote: Israel Protects Soldiers from War Crimes Charges.

;;;;;
There weren't any 'war crimes' it was more of a 'war mistakes' & the proven facts of Hamas using so called protected areas to launch rocket & sniper attacks. Then disappearing back into their rat holes to escape the incoming response from IDF...leaving innocent Palestinians & the protected areas to take the hit.

Seems like a commendable idea ,to not allow terrorists actions to bounce back on those who were only doing their jobs & attempting to protect themselves in the face of actions by the cowardly Hamas fighters.

This cowardly decision betrays the values the corporation stands for
Tim Llewellyn
The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009

On Tuesday, speaking from a pulpit in Westminster Abbey, the director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, paid tribute to one of the corporation's greatest journalists and broadcasters, Charles Wheeler, who died last summer at the age of 85.

Thompson spoke in reverential terms of Wheeler: his independence; his dislike of authority, any authority; his relentless search for the truth, in postwar Germany, in the United States of the 1960s and 1970s, LBJ, Vietnam, Nixon; in India, Kuwait, Kurdistan. Thompson was right. Wheeler was a giant among BBC journalists, rightly hailed as one of the best of his generation.

But even as Thompson spoke, the corporation was traducing every tradition that Wheeler, and many of us who still work for the BBC, have tried to live by. The corporation's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, had refused to allow it to broadcast an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza. She said that one reason was that "the BBC's impartiality was in danger of being damaged". Could the BBC be sure, she added, that money raised for this cause would find its way to the right people?

How is the BBC's impartiality to be prejudiced by asking others to raise money for the victims of an act of war by a recognised state, an ally of Britain, using the most lethal armaments it can against a defenceless population? What sly little trigger went off in her head when Thomson questioned whether the aid would reach the right people? What right people? Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? The hospitals and clinics run by private charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? The mosques? The citizens of Gaza, persecuted beyond measure not only by their Israeli enemies but by the western powers who arm and sustain Israel and defy the democratic vote of the Palestinian people?

Is Thomson more fussed about some imaginary "war on terror" that even the new White House is shying away from than she is about upholding the free speech and freedom of action of the corporation?

This pusillanimous obeisance to some imagined governmental threat has aroused unprecedented anger across the BBC. Reporters and correspondents still on the staff, and who will not name themselves, are beside themselves with rage against a corporation that is traducing the very ideals it is supposed to uphold, and for which the director-general seemed to speak in Westminster Abbey.

This is what one former BBC World Service current affairs producer wrote to his colleagues yesterday: "... I am rarely moved to comment on aspects of the BBC I can no longer influence. But I confess I am deeply saddened and confused - and frankly pleased to be distanced from such decisions - after listening to Caroline Thomson's obfuscating defence on Today of the refusal to broadcast the joint charity appeal on behalf of the suffering in Gaza. The question of partiality is a red herring. It is for the general public to respond to a humanitarian disaster as they choose."

Having dealt with different news managers at the BBC over the past 30 years or so, I can safely say that the modern BBC has become a body of lions led by donkeys. Reporters of the calibre of Jeremy Bowen, David Lloyn, Lyse Doucet, experts in their field and brave people all, will be appalled by the directions they are being given. Edward Stourton and the Today programme rightly produced Tony Benn yesterday morning because they knew he would articulate what their bosses have failed to: reason and humanity.

The big question that remains is this: what are the suits scared of? Why do BBC managers try to second-guess our government and even outreach it in grovelling to the United States and Israel?

BBC journalists, extant and retired, not the "usual suspects", not disaffected radicals and high-octane lefties, are incandescent with rage over this extraordinary piece of institutional cowardice.

The episode makes a travesty of the institution's posturing in Westminster Abbey last week, and discredits the honest reporters the BBC still has on its books and in the field.

%u2022 Tim Llewellyn is a former BBC Middle East correspondent

Archbishop joins criticism of BBC refusal to screen Gaza appeal
Corporation receives 11,000 complaints and 50 MPs plan to back motion calling on BBC to change its mind over aid film
Caroline Davies, Vanessa Thorpe and Gaby Hinsliff
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 January 2009 16.10 GMT

The Archbishop of Canterbury today added to criticism of the BBC over its refusal to broadcast a charity appeal for aid to Gaza.

He spoke as it emerged the BBC had received some 11,000 complaints and more than 50 MPs planned to back a parliamentary motion urging the corporation to reverse its decision not to broadcast tomorrow's appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).

The early day motion to be tabled tomorrow by Labour's Richard Burden has received the support of 51 MPs from across the Commons; ministers and some senior BBC staff have also called for the BBC to change its mind. The corporation today admitted it had received "approximately" 1,000 telephone complaints about the decision and a further 10,000 by email.

Meanwhile, adding his voice to the calls for a U-turn while speaking after a church service in Cambridge, the Right Rev Rowan Williams said: "My feeling is that the BBC should broadcast an appeal."

But despite the increasing pressure, a BBC spokesman today said the situation remained unchanged.

Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, has been left isolated as ITV and Channel 4 agreed to air the plea for aid.

The BBC has decided that broadcasting the appeal might be seen as evidence of bias on a highly sensitive political issue.

The culture secretary, Andy Burnham, said it was right that broadcasters made their own decisions, adding that the BBC faced a difficult choice because of the way it is funded.

The communities secretary, Hazel Blears, said she hoped the BBC would "urgently review its decision", and the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, said the corporation had made the "wrong decision".

Yesterday, the Archbishop of York, the John Sentamu, accused the broadcaster of "taking sides" and said: "This is not a row about impartiality, but rather about humanity.

"This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention," he added.

"They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms, but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief.

"By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality."

Thompson received backing from the BBC Trust's chairman, Sir Michael Lyons. He said he was "concerned" about the tone of some politicians' comments on the issue, which he said came close to "undue interference" in the BBC's editorial independence.

The BBC's unrepentant stance has stirred up rebellion in the ranks of it own reporters and editors. One senior BBC news presenter told the Observer: "I've been talking to colleagues, and everyone here is absolutely seething about this.

"The notion that the decision to ban the appeal will seem impartial to the public at large is quite absurd.

"Most of us feel that the BBC's defence of its position is pathetic, and there's a feeling of real anger, made worse by the fact that, contractually, we are unable to speak out."

Jon Snow, the journalist who presents Channel 4 news, said the BBC should have been prepared to accept the judgment of the aid experts of the DEC.

"It is a ludicrous decision," he said. "That is what public service broadcasting is for. I think it was a decision founded on complete ignorance and I am absolutely amazed they have stuck to it."

Snow said he suspected a BBC bureaucrat had "panicked" and urged Thompson to put the situation right.

Martin Bell, the former BBC foreign correspondent, said the corporation should admit it had made a mistake and claimed "a culture of timidity had crept" in.

"I am completely appalled," he said. "It is a grave humanitarian crisis and the people who are suffering are children. They have been caught out on this question of balance."

But Greg Dyke, Thompson's predecessor as director general, said the issue had put the BBC in a "no win situation".

"Outside of Iraq, the single biggest issue that caused complaints was the coverage of Israel," he added. "I can understand why the BBC has taken this decision, because on a subject as sensitive as the Middle East it is absolutely essential that the audience cannot see any evidence at all of a bias."

The BBC also faces demands for an explanation from within the -Commons international development select committee.

Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary, said: "We believe that they should allow the broadcast to proceed so that the British public, who have proved themselves so generous during recent emergencies in the Congo and Burma, can make their own judgment on the validity of the appeal."

The satellite broadcaster Sky said it was "considering" broadcasting the appeal.

A BBC spokesman said: "We do accept that people are strongly guided in their view on this by the humanitarian emergency.

"We are highlighting the situation in Gaza in every news bulletin, and that is one of the reasons the issue is so high on the agenda."

I found a piece in Todays Austrailian newspaper about hamas attempting to use ambulances for cover etc. during the war.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hamas-t ried-to-hijack-ambulances-during-gaza-wa r/2009/01/25/1232818246374.html

Heres hoping the link works .

At 1/25/09 02:12 AM, Phantom wrote:

At 1/24/09 10:28 PM, sora-key wrote: so no one read the article? I found it to present a lot of information that isn't heard enough

I find it one sided and unworthy of the band width it occupies. But that's just my opinion.

In your sig : "I live in Israel: FUCK GAZA"
I find your sig one sided and unworthy of the band width it occupies. But that's just my opinion. Shows what an open mind you have: fuck GAZA? according to you Israel was protecting itself, so shouldn't it be FUCK HAMAS? Of coarse your using Hamas as an excuse to justify what happened, and lets not forget who broke the ceasefire. This shows that you have a deep hate for the people and not for their political leaders, reminds me of a the nazis hating jews based on their ethnicity, but of coarse Israelis are never wrong....

I think it's telling that you choose to fail to examine the causes and jump to condemnation over a sentiment.

It's people like you, sora, that are the problem with the world.

I'll take the rattlesnake over the water moccasin every time. "Fuck GAZA"? Fuck islam, nuke that shit.

i'm kidding you can't nuke a religion.

At 1/27/09 03:52 PM, sora-key wrote: Of coarse your using Hamas as an excuse to justify what happened, and lets not forget who broke the ceasefire.

;;;;;
According to the BBC today, Sora , Hamas planted & detonated a bomb just outside its border killing an Israeli soldier & wounding 2 others... I realise yourself & the ever so lovely Sari would never consider that to be of any significance...but myself & many others believe that is a criminal act.

You say (Hamas) you are going to honour a cease fire agreement...even for the short term as Hamas has said...then you allow your fighters to sneak out & pull of a cowardly attack.
I hope they continue this latest escalation & Israel says "fuck this shit" & they bulldoze that entire Gaza strip flat...so that not one person who didn't flee or get killed is left .

F^(&!# @ no good useless murderous cowards.
But more than likely the cowards will keep sneaking around murdering their own as well as Israeli's, while people like yourself continue to support their murderous plans.

This pretty much sums it :

A warped chorus of misinformed do-gooders, by its refusal to understand the whole picture, has once again managed to turn the victim into the aggressor, and the aggressor into the victim.

Israel gave up the Gaza Strip three years ago, in the hope of advancing the peace process. Instead of peace, they've received 7,000 rockets from Gaza militants.

Israel drops leaflets and broadcasts warnings to civilian populations, warning of impending hostilities. Hamas, on the other hand (as did Hezbollah from Lebanon), fires rockets indiscriminately, into schools and old-age homes and hospitals. But, then again, how can we expect these terrorists to respect Israeli lives when they don't even respect the lives of their own brethren? These brave "warriors" fire their rockets while hiding in mosques and schools and hospitals, knowing that Israel will retaliate - and purposely putting their "brothers and sisters" in harm's way.

And, when Israel finally responds to these crimes, as it is doing now, these warriors fire back, then continue to hide among their own civilians.

The media has raged about civilian casualties. And they should. But what about Israel's civilians? What about the quarter-million Israeli children, in the south, who have to spend half their lives in bomb shelters, never knowing what they'll find when they finally emerge? Who's speaking for them?

If Mexico fired 7,000 rockets into the United States, it would be considered an act of war, and we would respond. If Canada fired 7,000 rockets into the United States, it would be considered an act of war - and we would respond. And our response would be exactly the same as Israel's.

Hamas' decision to commit acts of war against Israel - after Israel made the sacrifice of giving back Gaza - is stark evidence (again) that militant Islam does not want peace. It wants piece - after piece after piece - of Israel. Until there's no Israel left.

If the rest of the world is so concerned about civilian casualties, perhaps, instead of blasting Israel for responding to these acts of war, it should criticize the militant Palestinian factions for committing these acts while hiding amid their own civilians - and knowingly jeopardizing the lives of the people they claim to be fighting for.