GarfieldJL Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Which only leaves all the other logical fallacies and the fact that you're wrong. Let me know when you get around to "editing to fix" those too. The fact that reuters alone was caught using 919 photographs all of them presumably doctered by the same individual in the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006. Then there were staged photos that the AP used, I fail to see the fallacy in my Logic. There is a point when something becomes a pattern and 919 photos goes far beyond that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 The fact that reuters alone was caught using 919 photographs all of them presumably doctered by the same individual in the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006. Then there were staged photos that the AP used, I fail to see the fallacy in my Logic. There is a point when something becomes a pattern and 919 photos goes far beyond that point. SOURCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 SOURCE. I posted it earlier in this thread http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579115&postcount=192 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 still waiting for your response to israel's admission that hamas didn't fire into israel during the ceasefire e: gonna go play some mass effect while you find a way to absolve israel of guilt e2: decided against mass effect imma play nwn2 instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee Hoon Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 To settle the Mads Gilbert thing: jmac got it translated correctly, that said he have also said that he supports armed revolution in just about every country and was the local communist (not an exagaration) crackpot in my old home town, so I'd not take him terribly seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Source please, and I'd like a video source plz. Oh, that's rich. Furthermore these news agencies have a track record of using bogus material to try to condemn Israel. Irrelevant. The news reporting doesn't change the fact that what Israel is doing is wrong. The things being reported by the idf are enough for us to make our case (see: anything jmac has posted in this thread). D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread. Agree. Well said, Bee. I think the number of casualties speaks for itself. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Agree. Well said, Bee. I think the number of casualties speaks for itself. _EW_ Well, clearly, the *totally factless and baseless argument with no supporting sources about Hamas militants using schools as base camps* justifies the deaths of countless innocent children. Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant. it's ok none were americans or western allies (but since those guys still aren't americans they count as 1/2 a person) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread. This is a tough call, and actually Hamas, IF they were housing munitions in the school(s) or were shooting from the roof of the school, were in direct violation of the Laws of War. Relevant section: Violations and applicability Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area. By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected. Once Hamas put weapons in the school, it was no longer a protected target, no matter how much we despise the very idea of bombing anything with children inside it. Hamas knew there were children in the school, and knew it was a gross violation to have weapons there. The blood of those children are on Israel's hands, to be sure (they could have bombed it at night time when children were unlikely to be inside), but even greater responsibility falls on Hamas for blatantly violating the rules of warfare. In fact, Hamas is guilty of war crimes if it knowingly housed weapons on any protected property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 This is a tough call, and actually Hamas, IF they were housing munitions in the school(s) or were shooting from the roof of the school, were in direct violation of the Laws of War. Relevant section: Once Hamas put weapons in the school, it was no longer a protected target, no matter how much we despise the very idea of bombing anything with children inside it. Hamas knew there were children in the school, and knew it was a gross violation to have weapons there. The blood of those children are on Israel's hands, to be sure (they could have bombed it at night time when children were unlikely to be inside), but even greater responsibility falls on Hamas for blatantly violating the rules of warfare. In fact, Hamas is guilty of war crimes if it knowingly housed weapons on any protected property. It. Doesn't. Matter. Both of them are equally at fault, nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't make Israel's actions any less horrible, animalistic, and vile. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant. The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member, and dropping a couple ton bomb to take out the rocket launch site. it's ok none were americans or western allies (but since those guys still aren't americans they count as 1/2 a person) The loss of civilians is regretable but the situation is that Hamas was using the school as a weapons platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member, and dropping a couple ton bomb to take out the rocket launch site. You trying to pick a fight? The loss of civilians is regretable but the situation is that Hamas was using the school as a weapons platform. whelp guess we just have to take israel's word for it then and their word that bombing or shelling said school was the only way to stop these hamas members that may or may not even have existed was to bomb the **** out of a school still waiting for your response to israel's admission that hamas didn't fire into israel during the ceasefire e: gonna go play some mass effect while you find a way to absolve israel of guilt e2: decided against mass effect imma play nwn2 instead still waitin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 whelp guess we just have to take israel's word for it then and their word that bombing or shelling said school was the only way to stop these hamas members that may or may not even have existed was to bomb the **** out of a school They have a much better track record for honesty than Hamas does putting it mildly. still waitin And I'm waiting to hear the rest of it that you've neglected to mention, seriously Israel isn't out to try to annihilate the Palestinians. I heard about a few of the times that Israel supposedly violated cease fires only for it to turn out the news media neglected to mention rockets being launched into Israel, or suicide bombers being snuck into Israel by Hamas, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 It. Doesn't. Matter. Both of them are equally at fault, nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't make Israel's actions any less horrible, animalistic, and vile. Period. I won't argue with the fact that it's vile, horrible, and any other adjective of negative sentiment that we can come up with. The sentiment is that Hamas is in the right and Israel is in the wrong--I'm arguing they both are. Israel has enough intel on the entire world to be able to make a strike when kids aren't around. Hamas should know better than to put arms in a protected target, thereby removing the protection. If you're talking about what's right, then they both suck at doing that. If you're talking about what's legal, then Hamas screwed themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 seriously Israel isn't out to try to annihilate the Palestinians. I heard about a few of the times that Israel supposedly violated cease fires only for it to turn out the news media neglected to mention rockets being launched into Israel, or suicide bombers being snuck into Israel by Hamas, etc. Source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 uhh garfield the guy who said that hamas didn't fire any rockets into israel was this guy, not some reporter. and the idf is no more credible or moral than hamas. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Source. He doesn't have one, and if he does, it's a conservative blog, or Fox News. As per usual. I won't argue with the fact that it's vile, horrible, and any other adjective of negative sentiment that we can come up with. The sentiment is that Hamas is in the right and Israel is in the wrong--I'm arguing they both are. Israel has enough intel on the entire world to be able to make a strike when kids aren't around. Hamas should know better than to put arms in a protected target, thereby removing the protection. Okay? I never said that both weren't in the wrong. They are, this is obvious. But America supports Israel. Why? Who the **** knows anymore. But it needs to end, because both sides, BOTH SIDES, are completely and totally wrong. Israel is not defending itself. They're creating a massacre out of hate. Plain and simple. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html "Nope. Those sources are lies. The IDF lie to us. This is liberal slander. Fox News will tell us what is irrefutably true!" Honestly, why do you bother when you know the reaction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 If you have issues with moderation, see an admin--don't discuss it here as that's off-topic. If you are publicly musing why someone is allowed to post here, it's off topic. Commentary about what the mods are doing with a particular member is off-topic. Some of you are outright flaming each other--cool it off please. Further discussion along these lines will earn you an infraction. If you don't want to hear what someone has to say, put them on your ignore list, which you can access from your user cp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 IDF is about as pro-Israeli as Hamas can get pro-Palestinian. Neither are unbiased. I would not put IDF above shading the truth on reporting--they aren't letting anyone in to report on Gaza at this point (or very few if they started recently), which really makes me suspicious of Israeli intentions on 'reporting the truth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member Funny, I heard these exact words come out of an Israeli ambassador's mouth last week on FoxNews. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 uhh garfield the guy who said that hamas didn't fire any rockets into israel was this guy, not some reporter. and the idf is no more credible or moral than hamas. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html Let me be perfectly blunt, I would trust any of the European News sources about as far as I could throw an semi truck. When it comes to Israel, the BBC, Guardian, etc. have absolutely no credibility at all. They have a history of dishonesty when it comes to Israel, and I'm going to post up some stuff from bloggers, but in this case considering the BBC and others ended up having to admit that the photos were bogus (and these bloggers are who caught them at it, it's rather hard to dispute these bloggers on this issue). littlegreenfootballs In this case this source has been proven to be accurate, since we're talking about the 2006, Israeli/Lebanon Conflict Anyways there is a long history of outright dishonesty from the European Media. Karsenty came to court loaded for bear, with trolleyfuls of documentation, including a 90-page ballistics report. Out of it all, the court also trained its sights on a telling 2005 Le Figaro opinion piece by two establishment journalists, Denis Jeambar, then editor in chief of L'Express (France's answer to Newsweek), and Daniel Leconte, head of news documentaries at the state-run French-German cultural channel, Arte (a kind of French-German PBS), both unlikely participants in this undignified scrum. Jeambar and Leconte, egged on by a former Le Monde journalist, Luc Rosenzweig, who had taken a great interest in the case and started writing about it for the small Israeli news outfit Mena, asked France 2 as early as 2004 to show them the original raw rushes. Acknowledging Jeambar and Leconte's weight in the French establishment, France 2 had done for them what it had refused to do for countless others and had shown them, and Rosenzweig, the 27 minutes of film. What happened then was typical of the cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof behavior even powerful French figures display when faced with any kind of violation of the unspoken but well-understood order of precedence obtaining among the elite here. While Jeambar and Leconte took their time to ponder what they'd seen, Rosenzweig had the nerve to file a piece for Mena describing the tape's scenes of staging just before the fatal shooting. You could see Palestinians being carried on stretchers into ambulances, then coming out again unharmed, all in a kind of carnival atmosphere, with kids throwing stones and making faces at the camera, despite what was supposed to be a tense situation. The tape showed occasional gunshots, not continuous firing. From the general horsing around captured on film by Abu Rahmeh, Mena concluded that the whole scene must have been staged. Their being preempted by Rosenzweig incensed Leconte and Jeambar, who expressed their displeasure in the 2005 op-ed in the center-right Le Figaro. They spent so much of the piece denouncing Rosenzweig, his gall in reporting first on what he'd seen in the company of his betters, and the conclusions he'd dared draw independently, that it was easy to overlook a key fact: Jeambar and Leconte themselves not only conceded that the tape showed Palestinians stage-managing various shots and horsing around, they also described joking about those very scenes with the France 2 executives who were screening the tape for them. All of those present at the screening-illustrious visitors and France 2 executives alike, the op-ed recounted-had ended up in full agreement that it was impossible to determine where the bullets had come from, but that it was highly unlikely that they could have come from the Israeli garrison. More crucially, Jeambar and Leconte also had caught Enderlin lying (or, as they kindly put it, "extrapolating"): "There was no 'unbearable agony' of the child anywhere on the tape," they wrote. "It wasn't edited out, it simply did not exist." The Figaro piece had little impact when it was published, but it turned out to be one of the crucial elements in Karsenty's challenge to France 2's version of events. He won his appeal. The ruling, handed down on May 21, stated that he had acted in good faith as a media commentator and that he had presented a "coherent body of evidence," although the hoax could not be definitively proven. The judge also noted "inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin," whose appearance in court was his first sworn testimony in the matter. -- Weekly Standard The first French Court seemed to be concerned with convicting this blogger, and the appeals court threw out the libel conviction and said that the guy provided enough evidence to throw the France 2's story into serious question. Then we have Adnan Hajj's doctored photos used by Reuters. All are miraculously pristinely clean and apparently untouched by the devastation they purportedly survived. (Reuters might want to check its freelancers' expenses for unexplained Toys R Us purchases.) --http://www.journalism.wisc.edu Furthermore the BBC was forced to admit later that there was a problem with those photographs: BBC Several other Conservative Bloggers had a field day back in 2006, http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/08/another-bogus-photo/ By the way, this stuff is pretty hard to dispute because the news agencies like Reuters, New York Times, BBC, etc. were all forced to admit that the photos were bogus and the scenes were staged. Funny, I heard these exact words come out of an Israeli ambassador's mouth last week on FoxNews. Yeah I heard it too, and thing is the Israeli Ambassador is right. You have made this argument multiple times in this thread and have made your point here in this post. It is unnecessary to say the same thing multiple times, and further posting of this same argument will be deleted as redundant and subject to sanctions according the Kavar's rules. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 wordsan expert dodge, sir. blame reporters even though i posted a video of the israeli prime minister's spokesman admitting no rockets were fired into israel by hamas during the ceasefire. and haaretz is israeli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 an expert dodge, sir. blame reporters even though i posted a video of the israeli prime minister's spokesman admitting no rockets were fired into israel by hamas during the ceasefire. and haaretz is israeli. And what intell were the Israelis acting on, considering their Intelligence Agency is considered the best in the world. The Israelis have no motive to just start lobbing shells into Gaza or driving tanks in for no reason, it's a waste of money unless there is a pretty good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 And what intell were the Israelis acting on, considering their Intelligence Agency is considered the best in the world. The Israelis have no motive to just start lobbing shells into Gaza or driving tanks in for no reason, it's a waste of money unless there is a pretty good reason.because they're not the angels you make them out to be and as i've said before, they're just as genocidal as hamas. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50C1Z920090113 whoops none of those were fox news or littlegreenfootballs links just links to israeli sources and reuters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.