What about it? It is pretty much general knowledge and no one has denied it.
It was in response to Hamas being elected.
Life in Occupied Palestine
- Thread starter charlesmartel
- Start date
What about it? It is pretty much general knowledge and no one has denied it.
It was in response to Hamas being elected.
Funny you say that, I keep hearing the same line that "Gaza is the most densely populated place on the earth", as an argument for Hamas having to fire their rockets from civilian locations. Knowing the absolute lies coming from the pro-Hamas side I Googled it and suggest that you guys do too before using it in your arguments again. Hint: its not even close (it wouldn't even make it into the top 50 cities. Ironically Tel Aviv is even more densely populated).
Civilian casualty numbers are likely to be greatly exaggerated as well as, as you have seen in that video, Hamas are committing another major war crime by dressing in civilian clothing, making it impossible to distinguish between real civilian casualties and those of Hamas militants. But seeing as it is Hamas itself who is supplying most of the casualty statistics its pretty academic anyway.
It is also a law of war that "combatants that intentionally use protected people or property as human shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of the laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected."
So its very clear that Hamas is legally responsible for the deaths of the civilians in the buildings it is firing from, even if you don't agree with it from a moral standpoint.
Maybe, I'd be willing to buy that. Are there some other instances of anything like that happening in the past, or maybe some sort of policy in place that would indicate that is standard procedure?
Forgive me for not trusting in everything I see online, but that is an awfully convenient video, the timing couldn't be better, and for some reason the faces are blurred. Seems suspicious, but I have no reason to trust Hamas NOT to fire rockets into Israel so it could go either way to be honest. Has the Israeli government made a statement regarding the video? I dunno, but I think it's naive not to ask questions and to believe everything on the Internet.
Fuck Alex Jones and fuck David Icke. But also, fuck anyone that tries to dismiss the idea that governments lie and false flags are a reality. Are you honestly trying to say that governments (including Israel and the US) have never been behind false flags and have never lied or manipulated public opinion to justify war? IS that really an opinion you want to get behind?
I am absolutely convinced that Hamas has fired lots of rockets into Israel. I am not convinced that the people who were conveniently captured on video and even more conveniently had their faces blurred were Hamas. Is that weird?
One thing I think most people miss when saying Hamas fires rockets from crowded civilian areas in Gaza is the scale.
Gaza's area is 139 sq miles.
Gaza's population is 1.8 m
That's 13k people per square mile.
I'm not naive enough to assume that's evenly spread, but given that most of the open area is right along the Israeli separation wall which is armed with snipers...
That said, at the end of the day the issue is the continued occupation. I know people will say Hamas wants to kill all Jews, but let's face it. They held a ceasefire for almost 2 years before this flare up and suppressed the smallier crazier jihadist groups during that time. They can live in peace.
It's nice to try to paint this black and white - Israel wants peace Hamas wants to kill all Jews. There are crazies on both sides calling for genocide yes. But peace IS possible - it's just going to require an actual negotiated end to the occupation.
Even if they are deliberately firing from next to residential buildings, what difference does it make? As you saw in the video, they set up a tent, fired the rocket, and then went away. So what exactly is the point of Israel striking that location in return when neither the rocket, nor the people responsible are there anymore?
It makes no sense whatsoever and it seems like Israel responds just to say 'fuck you' and collectively punish anyone that is unfortunate enough to live there rather than actually take the people responsible out.
It makes no sense whatsoever and it seems like Israel responds just to say 'fuck you' and collectively punish anyone that is unfortunate enough to live there rather than actually take the people responsible out.
This is what it boils down to. If they were going after Hamas, everyone would likely support them. However they are killing more kids than Hamas members, and many times more civilians than Hamas members. I can't support that.
“...Locating rockets in schools and hospitals, or even launching these rockets from densely populated areas, are violations of international humanitarian law,” Pillay said. “But it does not absolve the other party—that is, Israel—from not itself observing its obligations under international humanitarian law.”
In accusing Israel of violating international law, Pillay and Ban are referring to the Geneva Convention of 1949, to which both Israel and Palestine are signatories. This treaty states that “warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects,” as Human Rights Watch explained in a useful Q. & A. published on its Web site over the weekend. “Attacks may target only military objectives. Attacks targeting civilians or that fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population compared to the anticipated military gain, are prohibited.”
Israeli Pullback Won't Quell Questions About "War Crimes"
The militants in Gaza operate next to civilians, UN facilities, schools, mosques so there is no way to take them out without some collateral damage.
Both options are bad for Israel, do what it does now and suffer public criticism (sometimes mixed with anti-semitism and anti-zionism) or live under constant rocket fire.
Maybe this could've been avoided but when things escalated there were only the 2 options above to chose from.
That is totally correct, however this "combatants that intentionally use protected people or property as human shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of the laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected" is conveniently left out and does absolutely absolve Israel of the legal blame if Hamas are using these people and buildings as shields.
You are aware that the UN are not impartial in this whole thing? They do not even consider Hamas as terrorists. And when bombs were found in the UN schools they proceeded to hand those bombs back to the PA (i.e. Hamas) which then "went missing".
Let me ask you a question. If Israel held fire every time a rocket was shot from or around a UN building, school etc. what do you think Hamas would then do? BINGO! They would ONLY fire from such buildings, making defence impossible for Israel.
The fact that Israel shoots back is forcing Hamas to use remote, single shot launchers. If Israel didn't shoot back then it would mean that Hamas would be able to fire continuously from the same spot, meaning they would need much fewer launchers to carry out their attacks and each launcher would be more dangerous. I can't believe I have to explain this as it is pretty damn obvious.
Not what I am saying at all. I am sure there have been several false flags in history (but I doubt that many). What I am saying is that its the nutter brigade who keep shouting false flag at every piece of evidence that has been shown to not support their case. Its pretty sad that the only way to justify your own beliefs is to just deny everything else is real.
The reason for blurring the faces is very obvious and you just need to use your own common sense to realise why. Journalists are only there because Hamas allows them to be. If they did not blur the faces and Israel then targeted these individuals directly then it would have had a catastrophic blowback effect on all journalists in Gaza as Hamas would blame the journalists for supplying the target to Israel.
It is crucial for all the journalists in the area to not get involved in the fighting in any way and this would have been seen as aiding the enemy.
The video of the attack is on IDFs FB page btw (not that that means anything)
Where are you getting this information? More kids than Hamas members??
You are joking right?
You don't see anything wrong with using women and children as fodder for your PR exercise?
Also according to international law it makes a HUGE difference. It holds them totally responsible for the deaths of the people in those buildings should Israel fire back.
You mean the blokes in civilian clothing running into a civilian area. Good luck.
Hamas Interior Ministry To Social Media Activists: Always Call The Dead 'Innocent Civilians'; Don't Post Photos Of Rockets Being Fired From Civilian Population Centers
Following are excerpts from the guidelines:
"Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank.
Don't forget to always add 'innocent civilian' or 'innocent citizen' in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.
"Avoid publishing pictures of rockets fired into Israel from [Gaza] city centers. This [would] provide a pretext for attacking residential areas in the Gaza Strip.
Do not publish or share photos or video clips showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [forces] in Gaza.
"Avoid entering into a political argument with a Westerner aimed at convincing him that the Holocaust is a lie and deceit; instead, equate it with Israel's crimes against Palestinian civilians.
Hamas Interior Ministry To Social Media Activists: Always Call The Dead 'Innocent Civilians'; Don't Post Photos Of Rockets Being Fired From Civilian Population Centers
Following are excerpts from the guidelines:
"Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank.
Don't forget to always add 'innocent civilian' or 'innocent citizen' in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.
"Avoid publishing pictures of rockets fired into Israel from [Gaza] city centers. This [would] provide a pretext for attacking residential areas in the Gaza Strip.
Do not publish or share photos or video clips showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [forces] in Gaza.
"Avoid entering into a political argument with a Westerner aimed at convincing him that the Holocaust is a lie and deceit; instead, equate it with Israel's crimes against Palestinian civilians.
Hamas Interior Ministry To Social Media Activists: Always Call The Dead 'Innocent Civilians'; Don't Post Photos Of Rockets Being Fired From Civilian Population Centers
Except that's not at all what happened. Thousands of rockets have been launched by Hamas (and Israel), nobody is shouting false flag. But when a mysterious video shows up just when people are asking for proof that Hamas operates next to civilians, and then those faces are blurred and we are left to believe they are Hamas because the reporter says they must be Hamas, well then that will obviously raise questions with anybody who thinks critically. It doesn't mean they aren't Hamas, it just means there is no proof. And the potential proof (their faces) was blocked out.
Well, you say that, and I would certainly be willing to believe it if only there were some policy somewhere that states the news agency they work for always blurs terrorists faces to protect the safety of their reporters. Does that exist? Are there other examples of them doing this, because every other video I've ever seen of Hamas (or Isis for that matter) does not blur the faces of the terrorists. In fact, that's why they wear the scarves over their faces to avoid being identified on film, right? So why is this different?
That's great news! I'm 100% confident that the IDF isn't afraid to show the faces of these terrorists, and I look forward to the unedited version of this footage.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrDAEgisXM"]12 Examples of Hamas Firing Rockets from Civilian Areas - YouTube[/ame]
You answered your own question about the blurred faces. When have you seen a news report showing Hamas fighters when their faces are not covered? Why is it you think the journalists only ever manage to catch them when their faces are covered? Why do you think their faces might not be covered in this instance? So following that do you not think that journalists are not showing the faces of Hamas on purpose?
The IDF didn't make the video and therefore probably doesn't have the raw footage, they are re-posting the video from the news outlet. And if my contention is correct the news outlet will not be sending the IDF the raw footage for reasons already stated.
Use Occam's razor. We all know Hamas shoots rockets from civilian areas and a video shows someone shooting a rocket from a civilian area. What is more likely? That it is actually Hamas OR that Israelis risked their lives to go in and shoot a rocket in the hope an Indian camera crew are sitting at a hotel window at the right time? Or maybe they staged the whole thing, with the Indian journalist in their pocket? Seems like a far fetched plan to prove something that practically everyone knows to be true anyway.
Uh...not quite.
In all my years I have never before seen the faces of terrorists blurred out. Ever. Not once. You're making an assumption, I am simply asking for proof. Somehow, that makes me the unreasonable one. OK.
Meanwhile, we should trust Israel because they have never been caught red-handed (Operation Susannah) recruiting people to blow up civilians in order to blame the mooslims, amirite?
No, what I am saying is, if you want your proof just try and find the opposite, as there should be lots of pics and videos from journalists on the ground of Hamas militants with their faces uncovered, if you can't find any then that is pretty telling in itself. I am certainly not going to go out of my way to search for evidence against a hypothesis that I find totally without merit and pretty paranoid, thats for you to do.
Well no, you don't have to trust Israel at all when it comes to this video, you have to trust the Indians. Again if you think something is awry then I suggest you go into the background of the journalist in question and/or his network and check for yourself whether you feel they are credible or not.
From the wiki:
"After Israel publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, the surviving terrorists were officially honored in 2005 by being awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav."
Blowback, eh? Don't justify Al Qaeda. Don't even start to.
A book I read The Looming Towers, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road/dp/1400030846"]"The Looming Towers"[/ame], gave all the background of Bin Laden and the growth of Al Qaeda - from Egyptian radicals in the 50s, to Bin Laden's Afghan crusades - but most significantly here, to Al Qaeda's huge problem with Saudi Arabia allowing the West (USA) to station forces in the Gulf to check Saddam's war machine.
The House of Saud (Saudi royal family) would have been history without US forces (economic partners, as well) to save its bacon.
And I recall the first statements from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda - were local in tone - decrying the House of Saud (bin Laden's home country).... and as quickly as the global impact of 9/11 became clear so did AQ's messaging become global - but bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi Arabian on the outs with those in power, wanted his homeland and holy land to be his base of power. Maybe even to overthrow the Sauds.
Just a fucking power hungry would-be tyrant with no conscience leading terrorists. Those Saudis in the airplanes were no friends of the Saudi government - though few 9/11 conspiracists will say as much. No "blowback" bullshit, unless you think US army protecting its economic allies from Saddam's war machine is international crime and, therefore, Al Qaeda are some kind of freedom fighters. Maybe then can you label 9/11 blowback.
I think any action can result in "blowback"
You don't think that USA's projection of power via established military bases around the world could possibly inspire blowback?