|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2006 : 21:41:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sago
People who can only say effing this or effing that when pretending to make a point do not deserve respect for their opinion, or rather lack of opinion.
Really? What amount of respect do you reserve for the opinions of a man who calls the US Constitution a "god damn piece of paper?" Or for a man who tells a colleague to "fuck off" inside the US Senate?
I certaintly hope your sensitivity to dirty words isn't blunted by political loyalty.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 17:11:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
beskeptigal said:
quote:
The goal was to bomb civilian targets in order to make the civilians angry at Hezbollah and to then blame them for bringing Israel's wrath.
Ya know, I'd agree more with you on this topic if you stopped making these unevidenced and insane claims.
I generally respect the positions of Amnesty International, and have a favorable opinion of them overall...
But this, from your link: quote:
"The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population to get them to turn against Hizbullah,
(bolding mine)
...is nothing more than an opinion.
I have scoured the AI site to find the full text of this report, which would include these statements from Israeli officials, and can find nothing.
I'll grant you that it would be a key piece of evidence, if it existed, to have documented statements from Israeli government officials in charge of military operations openly stating that they destroyed non-hizbollah civillian targets with the intention of making the Lebanese people angry with Hizbollah.
I'd argue with you about it some more, but you have proven immune to rational thinking on this subject.
Bring back some evidence, a link to these statements by Israeli officials stating their intention to punish the Lebanese people for example, and you have a chance of convincing me your position is more than just an emotional overreaction.
Dude, if you read my post and links you would see it isn't me making the claims. I agree with them but don't accuse me of making unsupported claims when I have reported them as someone else's claims AND provided links to multiple sources of supporting evidence.
Here is one of the AI writer's interview on Democracy Now. Read that and the Hersh article and the HRW report then we can have a discussion as to how valid the conclusions are. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/27/2006 17:16:00 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 17:24:09 [Permalink]
|
Hightlights from the AI interview on Democracy Now:
The following are words spoken by Marty Rosenbluth, specialist for Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the Palestinian Authority for Amnesty International-USA.
"So when we met with senior IDF officials in Israel, they said, “Well, the electrical infrastructure is a military target, because Hezbollah needs electricity.” Well, of course Hezbollah needs electricity, but so do hospitals, so do civilians for refrigeration, so does the water infrastructure. The electrical pumps rely on electricity for water. So if you knock out the electricity infrastructure, you also knock out the water, which creates a major health hazard. So, simply claiming that there's some military potential or it contributes in some way to Hezbollah's military purposes doesn't mean that it can be targeted as a military target. That's a clear violation of the laws of war....
...And again, we take them at their word. I mean, when the chief of staff of the IDF says that the purpose of the air strikes is so that the Lebanese government will realize that they don't rein in Hezbollah, that Lebanon will pay a heavy price, that's a very clear statement of policy. When they say that unless the Lebanese government reins in Hezbollah, that they're going to destroy the electrical infrastructure, that's a very clear statement of policy.
So the Israeli government is doing essentially, is what they're saying. If you read their documents, they say, well, it isn't a question of the individual objective, but the overall strategic advantage. It's a very, very broad interpretation of what's called, quote/unquote, “dual use,” where if something has a military purpose and a civilian purpose, it can be targeted....
...when we were in the meeting with senior Israeli defense officials in Israel, you know, what they said was, well, you know, not only are they broadcasting propaganda, but they're broadcasting instructions to the troops. And we asked for documentation. We said, “Can you give us transcripts? Can you give us audio tape? Can you give us videotape of Al Manar being used to actually broadcast instructions to Hezbollah fighters?” And they backed down on that.
And again, it's totally indiscriminate. I mean, they targeted basically the entire communications infrastructure. And again, I'm sure their claim would be, well, this has military potential, but it also has civilian use and affects civilians disproportionately to the military advantage from Hezbollah. ...
...the supermarkets were the first thing that were targeted. And they were targeted in a way that the trajectory was very high, so the contents of the supermarket was destroyed. It opens up the question whether that was targeted to force the civilian population to evacuate, to force the civilian population to flee....
...Israelis were basically claiming that they chose their targets very carefully, that they chose their targets very deliberately, and each and every target was vetted by a command chain, including an international humanitarian law trained expert. So that sets a very high bar.
And, in fact, the conclusion to our report and what we're asking for is an international investigation with experts that have the mandate and the training and the support and the financial resources and the cooperation of the parties to conduct the investigation properly. And I would think that both the Israeli government and our own government would have an interest in wanting a proper investigation. I mean, if Israel can show, if Israel can demonstrate, that these were in fact legitimate military targets, that should come out in a proper investigation. Our documentation and the documentation of other human rights organizations says that a lot of the targets were hit were not military targets. But if the Israelis can prove that they were through a proper investigation, that's what the investigation will show. And the same goes for Hezbollah....
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/27/2006 17:26:04 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 17:46:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
...So, if a Hizbollah squad puts a rocket launcher on top of a building that has 500 civillians inside it.... that building just became a military target. Same for the infrastructure that provides basic services (water/power/comm) to Hizbollah inhabited structures. Even if the same infrastructure also provides service to civillians. If Hizbollah is using it, its a military target....
Your example is reasonable. AI's example of unreasonable was to level a 10 story apartment building because there was one Hezbollah fighter inside. The question AI asks is, was there a rocket launcher they were targeting?
Israel claimed there was evidence at the Qana bombing there was Hezbollah rocket activity. It then became apparent the activity in question was from at least the day before or longer and was maybe nearby where the civilians were killed. Knowing Hezbollah fires and clears out right away, is it then a military target to hit the area Hezbollah was at the day before knowing they are no longer there? Or was that strategy to punish the civilians who very likely had no control over where Hezbollah fired rockets from?
What AI is asking is the same thing I have been asking, just how was it determined what was a military target? |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 17:59:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
beskeptical and Dude, if anything this argument shows, to me at least, that there are some serious grey areas in how civilian and military targets are defined in a fight against a group like Hezbollah.
Gray is a different issue. Is the blanket claim the civilian damage was collateral a lie?, is the issue here.
Hersh claims the military whistle blower who gave him the story reported the intentional target was the civilian infrastructure, period. The goal was to make the civilians suffer in the hopes the civilians would blame Hezbollah for bringing on the destruction and quit supporting Hezbollah.
You can state that is your military goal. You can state that the civilian support for Hezbollah is your target. At least it would be honest. I doubt it would garner Israel any more support and they therefore have little to gain from being honest. But outside observers have reported that was indeed the goal. This is the disagreement. Not whether blowing up a 10 story apartment was justified to get one Hezbollah fighter or the rocket launcher on the roof.
I don't agree but would accept the targeting of the rocket launcher as a military target and the damage to the apartment building as collateral damage, excessive still, but collateral. All the evidence I saw was of bombing of infrastructure, not Hezbollah fighters or rocket launchers.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 18:16:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sago
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If that were the case, Dude, you would be correct. But the conclusion by AI and HRW who both wrote investigative reports is the targets were not Hezbollah infrastructure, they were civilian infrastructure. And the reports back up Hersh's article in the New Yorker. Hersh has a reputation for writing accurate articles.
How do you define civilian infrastructure? The new Yorker is your source of knowledge about war? So if a civilian building is used to store and fire war materials, it is still a civilian structure in your mind? How many "military" bases do you think Hizbullah had for the 4000 or so rockets they were firing at Israel?
quote:
The goal was to bomb civilian targets in order to make the civilians angry at Hezbollah and to then blame them for bringing Israel's wrath.
You must be joking?
You actually deduce that from an article in the New Yorker, or from watching any news anywhere else? I know, you must have watched the Green Helmet guy stage the bodies of dead children, and that gave you the insights.....
And your evidence Hersh does not have a reputation for well informed articles or isn't quoting a reliable source is ????? Your evidence the meeting Hersh reported about with Bush encouraging Israel to use the tactic as a test run for the US using the same tactic in Iran is ????? Your evidence I know very little about these particular current events is ???? And your own expertise comes from ????
How about your evidence any bodies of dead children were 'staged' ???? Let me guess? You heard the false claim rigor mortis takes 24 hours to set in so the Qana bodies weren't really from that bombing event. Who was the idiot that made that claim? Was it Limbaugh or someone from Fox News? I heard about that ignorant claim but never caught who it was trying to spread that false information around.
FYI, "Assuming mild temperatures, rigor usually sets in about 3-4 hours after clinical death, with full rigor being in effect at about 12 hours, and eventually subsiding to relaxation at about 36 hours. Times for the onset of rigor mortis can vary from a few minutes to several hours depending on the temperature of the environment in which the body is found." |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/27/2006 18:17:24 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:18:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...And again, we take them at their word. I mean, when the chief of staff of the IDF says that the purpose of the air strikes is so that the Lebanese government will realize that they don't rein in Hezbollah, that Lebanon will pay a heavy price, that's a very clear statement of policy. When they say that unless the Lebanese government reins in Hezbollah, that they're going to destroy the electrical infrastructure, that's a very clear statement of policy.
Again and again, nothing but annecdotal evidence in support of these alleged statements by IDF personel. There is nothing but this guy's accusation.
None of the links you posted, none of my own searching, has turned up anything even close to an Israeli official claiming that they are deliberately targeting civilian stuff in order to make people mad at hizbollah, or punish them.
No rational person is going to believe your (and Rosenbluth's) claim that such a thing has occured unless you can prove it. Until then, you are doing little more than rumormongering.
As for the complaints about civillian targets...
Rosenbluth is changing the criteria, on the fly, to suit his personal opinion, of what does and does not constitute a military target.
The definition of military targets that AI uses themselves is a broad one, but it pretty clearly states that if enemy forces get a benefit from a target, it is a legitimate military target.
Why does this guy get to change the definition, and add qualifications?
It is pretty clear to me that this guy is overly biased and clearly incapable of objective thinking on this topic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Sago
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, you missed my point, which was that beskeptigal's point was clearly based on much more than the New Yorker, and what some unnamed "Green Helmet guy" had to do with it is beyond me, but you felt it was "adult" to lambaste her with such obvious derision. If that's what you think is "respect," then you've got no room to be criticizing a few f-words.
:shrug: I think that particular opinion, supported by those who think that if one side hides in civilian areas then they are off limits, has a better pigeonhole in the CT section.
As the the Green Helmet guy, he is pretty famous in most circles that follow the news, particularly regarding manufactured news, but presumably you haven't come across that in this forum.
As to derision. CT arguments will always have my derision, unless they are in the appropriate section, where I likely don't bother to venture.
The F words by the way, were in another thread, I think. Do you typically cross post or am I missing something here?
quote:
Your first impression isn't the first impression. My first impression of you was that you'll inform everyone that you don't like bad language, that you've never seen a Richard Scary book, and that you'll go out of your way to ridicule other people in childish ways. Is that the first impression everyone gets of you? I hope not. My point was that you've obviously got some bad social behaviours of your own, so perhaps you should take care of them before you start with the "holier-than-thou" routine.
"Bad" language has it's place when it makes a point that is more than crude emotion. You haven't hesistated to criticize me for being critical of a foulmouth (see what I mean?), but am I to assume that if I had sailed in here with a raving rant about anyone EXCEPT a member of this forum that you would have welcomed me with open arms and not thought I was holier that thou?
No, I don't recall reading Richard Scary. You got that right.
|
|
|
|
Sago
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:40:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Really? What amount of respect do you reserve for the opinions of a man who calls the US Constitution a "god damn piece of paper?" Or for a man who tells a colleague to "fuck off" inside the US Senate?
I certaintly hope your sensitivity to dirty words isn't blunted by political loyalty.
 Filthy said that???
PS. This is from another thread. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:44:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sago
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Really? What amount of respect do you reserve for the opinions of a man who calls the US Constitution a "god damn piece of paper?" Or for a man who tells a colleague to "fuck off" inside the US Senate?
I certaintly hope your sensitivity to dirty words isn't blunted by political loyalty.
Filthy said that???
PS. This is from another thread.
I can expect a proper response from you there then, can I?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Sago
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:46:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
How about your evidence any bodies of dead children were 'staged' ???? Let me guess? You heard the false claim rigor mortis takes 24 hours to set in so the Qana bodies weren't really from that bombing event. Who was the idiot that made that claim? Was it Limbaugh or someone from Fox News? I heard about that ignorant claim but never caught who it was trying to spread that false information around.
There were plenty of videos showing them doing it, hence the fame of the "Green Helmet" guy, who played a prominent role in many of the staged events. Did you hear of the 900 odd photos that Reuters had to withdraw? The same ones that were seen in Time, Newsweek, US News and who knows how many TV shows.
People die in wars. Surprise. But if you buy propaganda like you seem to, I wonder what you are doing in a "skeptic" forum.
If you can't google what I'm refering to, let me know, I'll see if I can get you some links.
|
| Edited by - Sago on 08/28/2006 17:53:27 |
|
|
|
Sago
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:51:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I can expect a proper response from you there then, can I?
I suppose if you think that's important.
You seem to asking if I can think of any way to comment on anyone who can't control language, yet alone use it, without resorting to gutter obscenities.
In the street one typically walks the other way. At home one asks them to leave, or never invites them again. In a discussion forum one tells them what one thinks.
See..easy
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 20:48:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sago
:shrug: I think that particular opinion, supported by those who think that if one side hides in civilian areas then they are off limits, has a better pigeonhole in the CT section.
As the the Green Helmet guy, he is pretty famous in most circles that follow the news, particularly regarding manufactured news, but presumably you haven't come across that in this forum.
As to derision. CT arguments will always have my derision, unless they are in the appropriate section, where I likely don't bother to venture.
And you apparently are still missing my point, and tossing in a few more thinly-veiled insults along the way. Nice.quote:
The F words by the way, were in another thread, I think. Do you typically cross post or am I missing something here?
Do you think I should try to figure out what our new member "Sago" is like by quarantining each thread you decide to post to, and treating your posts in each as wholly independent of the others? It seems like you're asking me to assume that you've got Multiple Personality Disorder. Do you?quote:
You haven't hesistated to criticize me for being critical of a foulmouth (see what I mean?), but am I to assume that if I had sailed in here with a raving rant about anyone EXCEPT a member of this forum that you would have welcomed me with open arms and not thought I was holier that thou?
No, you're just missing the point. And because I thought I've explained it well, twice already, I can't be sure if you're being obtuse or if I'm not communicating well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 00:02:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sago
You seem to asking if I can think of any way to comment on anyone who can't control language, yet alone use it, without resorting to gutter obscenities.
Um, what? No, my question had nothing at all to with you commenting on obscenities without resorting to them yourself, if that is indeed what you mean here.
Since you don't seem to be a very careful reader, I'll repeat my question. What amount of respect do you reserve for the opinions of a man who calls the US Constitution a "god damn piece of paper?" or for a man who tells a colleague to "fuck off" inside the US Senate?
As you can see, I am referring to two very specific incidents. And again, this question stemmed from the comment you had made that people who use curse words "do not deserve respect for their opinion(s)."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
