8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[CyberGnu]

muxec, hate to burst your bubble, but that was the most asinine personal attack I've seen in a long time. Even Chris62 did it better.

Question is, are you an idiot, or are you just trying to divert the argument from the pus-filled boil on humanity that is the state of israel?

[CyberGnu]

And another ME thread turns into its inevitable conclusion. Unable to further defend the actions or even existance of Israel, it turns into accusations of anti-semitism.

If you have even one shred of dignitiy in you, ask yourself this: Why are you still defending a nation you can't find arguments for? Isn't it time to either take the moral choice or give up the pretense of morality?

[Arrian]

the pus-filled boil on humanity that is the state of israel?

And you are surprised people accuse you of anti-semitism?

-Arrian

[CyberGnu]

Well, knowing pro-israelis, I'm not exactly suprised that many of them as an inability to separate anti-semitism from opposiotn to aggression.

That the actions of israel would be reprehensible whether it was populated with jews, eskimos, baptists or rwandian animists is in conflict with their preconcieved notions, and thus dismissed out of hand.

[blackice]

because source A is wrong

The source is wrong again oh great one do you have any links or proof your opinion is right? Until then it is just an opinion you claim to be true.

So, either go back and reply to my critique of your worthless report, or just shut up.

Ah the markings of a loser "shut up".

Prove to me these reports are as you say "propaganda" First they comply with all U.N. regulations in breaking down casualties. No different then the report the U.N. just produced. BTW it also agrees with my point of view on the situation. You seem to be wrong quite a lot including your ill aimed completely wrong diatribe (critique or opinion) of the breakdowns. They too comply with all U.N. regulations about casualities. That alone tells me you are wrong about the link.

So while the palestinians hide behind citizens against the U.N. regulations putting thier own citizens at risk. You claim numbers which make no sense. Then you claim slaughter at the hands of the Israelis. Clearly no one agrees with you. Clearly the number you toss around like a baseball has no meaning what so ever. Clearly you are ignorant and void of truth and would like all those who present it to you to "shut up"

Clearly that is "propaganda" and dictatorial diatribe, not ones who take the time as the palestinians do and Israelis and the U.N. and many other interested humanitarian groups to show the breakdowns...the truth...

There are many site which produce breakdowns of the casualties this is obviously an area of debate you ceed.

Once again prove to me the link is propaganda until then your "opinion" is just that. That facts remain and you can dictate commands all you like but you have said nor proved anything except that you have a hard time with facts.

[CyberGnu]

Posted by BlackIce 01-08-2002 17:24

because source A is wrong


The source is wrong again oh great one do you have any links or proof your opinion is right? Until then it is just an opinion you claim to be true.

Posted by CyberGnu 01-08-2002 14:16 :

But I'm not saying that source A is wrong. I'm saying that the conclusions in your link are pure garbage.

So tell me, what part of 'But I'm not saying that source A is wrong.' is that you don't understand? Maybe you are not a native englishspeaker, if so please tell me what language you are fluent in and I'll try arrange a translation of this seemingly simple sentence.

Ah the markings of a loser "shut up".

Quite frankly, I think the markings of a loswer would be to avoid meeting arguments for a week and then return with name calling. Or maybe that wouldn't be a 'loser', just markings of 'child'.

Prove to me these reports are as you say "propaganda" First they comply with all U.N. regulations in breaking down casualties. No different then the report the U.N. just produced. BTW it also agrees with my point of view on the situation. You seem to be wrong quite a lot including your ill aimed completely wrong diatribe (critique or opinion) of the breakdowns. They too comply with all U.N. regulations about casualities. That alone tells me you are wrong about the link.

So while the palestinians hide behind citizens against the U.N. regulations putting thier own citizens at risk. You claim numbers which make no sense. Then you claim slaughter at the hands of the Israelis. Clearly no one agrees with you. Clearly the number you toss around like a baseball has no meaning what so ever. Clearly you are ignorant and void of truth and would like all those who present it to you to "shut up"

Clearly that is "propaganda" and dictatorial diatribe, not ones who take the time as the palestinians do and Israelis and the U.N. and many other interested humanitarian groups to show the breakdowns...the truth...

There are many site which produce breakdowns of the casualties this is obviously an area of debate you ceed.

Once again prove to me the link is propaganda until then your "opinion" is just that. That facts remain and you can dictate commands all you like but you have said nor proved anything except that you have a hard time with facts.

Are we done ranting and raving yet? I haven't 'tossed any numbers around'. I've proven that the link you posted is garbage, that is it. If you can find a report with some kind of objective value to it, feel free to post it. Judging from your literacy skills I doubt you can tell quality from propaganda,, however, to be prepared to have your reports exposed for what they are.

This is what I posted on page 4. As I said before, I don't intend to repeat myself just because you can't respond to solid arguments. If you have issues with the arguments here, either respond to them or shut up.

well, Ice, I read the report,and Oh my Lord!!! Turns out that the report is a pile of fetid dingos kidneys!!! And here I was expecting an unbiased report of high quality, but what I found was an utterly biased, albeit brilliantly written, propaganda piece.

Don't get me wrong here. I admire this piece. It is a piece of work that would have left Goebbels not only proud, but stunned. It weaves in assurances of impartiality while 'not making moral judgements'.

However, it also turns out that their raw data, if even correct (there is no source list apart from their assurances that they've compiled data from arab news agencies, human rights organizations and media both domestic and international), is very carefully massaged.

They have divided up the casualties in several categories:

Non-Combatant
A non-combatant is an innocent bystander – a person whose death or injury has no justification other than nationality or ethnicity.

Health Related
A “health related” fatality is someone who died from a cause only indirectly related to violence – for example, due to a heart attack following an incident, tear-gas inhalation, or a roadblock delay that prevented an ilperson from receiving medical treatment in a timely manner.

Probable Combatant
A “probable combatant” is someone killed at a location and at a time during which an armed confrontation was going on, who appears most likely – but not certain – to have been an active participant in the fighting. For example, in many cases where an incident has resulted in a large number of Palestinian casualties, the only information available is that an individual was killed when Israeli soldiers returned fire in response to shots fired from a particular location. While it is possible that the person killed had not been active in the fighting and just happened to be in the vicinity of people who were, it is reasonable to assume that the number of such coincidental deaths is not particularly high. Where the accounts of an incident appear to support such a coincidence, the individual casualty has been given the benefit of the doubt, and assigned a non-combatant status.

The status of “probable combatant” has also been assigned to people who knowingly took some action which would lead to increased danger, such as entering an area in which fighting was going on or which security officials had declared off-limits.

Uniformed Non-Combatant
A “uniformed non-combatant” is a non-civilian, but is not actively involved in the conflict. This category can include civil police as well as soldiers in uniform but not at their post.

Violent Protester
A “violent protester” may be a civilian, but has chosen to take an active and violent part in the conflict – such as rioting or vigilante activity.

Protestor Unkown
A “protestor unknown” is anyone who was killed during a protest, for whom information as to violent behavior is unavailable.

Full Combatant
A “full combatant” is a soldier on active duty, an active member of a terrorist group, or a civilian independently choosing to perpetrate an armed attack on the opposing side. In general, rock-throwers are not considered to be combatants; an exception to this generalization would be, for example, someone dropping large rocks from a bridge onto fast-moving traffic. A rioter throwing "Molotov cocktails", grenades, or the like can be considered a full combatant.
Mere possession of a weapon does not imply combatant status. A civilian driving with a weapon in his/her car, or a pedestrian with a holstered pistol, is normally considered a noncombatant. However, a civilian who encounters a terror attack in progress and draws his/her weapon in an attempt to stop or prevent the attack is a combatant once the weapon is out of its holster.

Suspected Collaborator
This is a special category for Palestinian or Israeli Arabs targeted by militants who suspect them of aiding Israel.

Unknown
In a large number of cases, the information at hand has been insufficient to decide the circumstances of death for a given Palestinian casualty. As the project continues and additional information is accumulated, we believe that the number of “unknowns” will steadily decrease.


When we divide fatalities into the broader categories of “Combatant” and “Noncombatant”, only “Full Combatants”, “Probable Combatants”, and “Violent Protestors” are counted as combatants. All others, including “Unknowns”, are considered to be noncombatants.


Of special note here is A “uniformed non-combatant” is a non-civilian, but is not actively involved in the conflict. This category can include civil police as well as soldiers in uniform but not at their post.

So a soldier killed on the bus is a non-combatant, while the Hamas leader that was recently killed is a combatant.

Furthermore, they also included the mysterious category Probable Combatant
A “probable combatant” is someone killed at a location and at a time during which an armed confrontation was going on, who appears most likely – but not certain – to have been an active participant in the fighting.

This means that, for example, every single person who died in Jenin can be considered a Probable Combatant, and thus included in the 'combatant' category.

So, the conclusion is that after artificially inflating the number of Israeli "non-combatatans" as well as the number of palestinian "combatants", they reach parity. Wow.

Well, Ice, that is what a PhD gets you... Vast experience in telling the junk from the gold...

[blackice]

I've proven that the link you posted is garbage

You have proven nothing except you have a complete lack of knoledge when it comes to this environment. Again prove to me your "opinion" and I will read it.

avoid meeting arguments for a week and then return with name calling

Name calling oh my innocent one Some of us have a life I appologize for not meeting your high standards of no life....

If you can find a report with some kind of objective value to it, feel free to post it.

As stated this report has full value it is up to you to prove it has not. Other than that it is your opinion again You are dense are'nt you.

fetid dingos kidneys

Speaking of "Judging from your literacy skills" that has to be one of the most complete assinine excuse's for proof I have ever seen...
This is your defense of your opinion? My a good one too.

If you have issues with the arguments here, either respond to them or shut up.

More dictatorial diatribe do we all just shut up because you want us to?

The post you made has been ignored by me for the reason's stated above. The site fully complies with the U.N. as far as breaking down the combatants from civilians. This knowledge while obviously escaping you has been told to you twice now. Yet you continue to ignore it and claim your opinion counts. The same world appoved method was just used to conclusion in the Jenin issue. It seems you are not quite up to date with the facts yet?

So for the last time other than your "opinion" insults and childish behavior post something that clearly defines casualties. Post something other than your inept opinion, which obviously lacks even basic knowlegde. Who and what makes a casualty of war and who is innocent and who is not. That site clearly defines it according to U.N. Your aguement lacks knowledge so once again I ask...

http://www.strainentertainment.com/test.html

here go test your fortune...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
IIRC, a large part of Uganda was uninhabitated because of a combination of famine and an epidemic. You will have to take this up with the people of the british parliament, who made the offer in 1901.

That Hitler didn't invade Sweden was not because he didn't bother, but because he needed the swedish steel.

Sweden told Hitler quite bluntly that if invaded, Sweden would blow the iron mines in Bergslagen. Hitler made it clear that if the iron stopped flowing, Sweden would be invaded. Both parties preferred to avoid bloodshed.

Your logic regarding 1943+ is on the surface sound, but fails on one premise: It assumes that Hitler was rational. As we all know, he was anything but in the later stages of the war... And if you were the ruler of a nation, would you have bet the lives of your citizens on Hitler being rational enough not to invade? Stalin did, and paid the price...

A large part of Uganda was declared uninhabited because Europeans thought the area suitable for plantation agriculture. Since there were no plantations there, only pesky natives, Europeans decided that it was a crying shame to let all that potential profit go to waste, hence the area WAS uninhabited....by plantations.

Who cares whether Hitler was sane? By 1942 or 1943 the situation was such that Sweden could have ceased collaborating with Hitler. They might have had to defend themselves, but the balance had shifted to an extent that Sweden would have been able to beat off what little the Germans could spare to send their way. After all Sweden is protected by mountains to the west and north and a sea on the south and east.

The peoples of occupied Europe also had a choice between collaborating and resisting. Many of them chose to resist even though at the outset the odds certainly seemed stacked against them. They of course fought for the freedom of their people. Why then should the Swedes have fought the axis, when after all, they continued to be free? It seems to me that if they collaborated with the Nazis only under duress, then Sweden was indeed not free, and had every reason to join the allies when the opportunity arose and ought to have done so. If on the other hand they chose to collaborate of their own free will, well then, they were collaborators weren't they?

[CyberGnu]

BlackIce, you still haven;t understood a word of what I've written.

I must conclude that you decided to follow neither of my usggestions. I therefore ask again, either respond to my arguments, or shut up. It has nothing to do with 'dictatorial diabtres', just that I don't have time to waste on an idiot who responds to imaginary points while leaving the real ones hanging.

[CyberGnu]

Strangelove:

Who cares whether Hitler was sane?

If he wasn't rational, why would we expect him to act in a rational fashion (i.e. ignore Sweden and go after Russia). He already had troops in Finland, it is very conceivable that he would have ordered a full scale invasion out of sheer paranoia.

Again, you are asking sweden to have it's people killed rather than make money...

[Bereta_Eder]

[CyberGnu]

Yeah, I know. I still have no idea what Strangelove is getting at...

[Bereta_Eder]

The smilie was for you.

Lots of countries were given the option to join the nazis, many did not.

The smilie is that while nazis were racking havoc they were doing it using some of your steel.

[CyberGnu]

We didn't join the nazis. If we would have, we would have sent troops to fight with the nazis like the hungarians and italians did.

To avoid being invaded we sold steel instead. Do you really think greece would have done anything else?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Strangelove:


If he wasn't rational, why would we expect him to act in a rational fashion (i.e. ignore Sweden and go after Russia). He already had troops in Finland, it is very conceivable that he would have ordered a full scale invasion out of sheer paranoia.

Again, you are asking sweden to have it's people killed rather than make money...

A better answer would have been that he already had troops in Norway, the troops in Finland were knee deep in Russians. In fact the troops in Finland were under the nominal control of the Finns, who as far as I know had no reason to go to war with you. I'm not saying that Sweden would not have had to fight, I'm saying that Sweden would have been able to successfully defend itself. Yes that would have meant some Swedes getting killed, but at least you'd have had your consciences clear with the knowledge that you weren't collaborating with the fiend Hitler. That is unless of course your people didn't really have a problem with what Hitler was doing. Surely Wallenberg must have told somebody in Sweden about what Hitler was doing?

I'm asking for the Swedish people to make up their minds as to whether it is better to take a risk and fight for freedom and the right of the defenseless (Jews) to live, or to sit back and accept the butcher's money. It's a moot question, your people already did, and the consequences are on your hands, which is really what this discusion has been all about. It is on YOU to do something to make right what YOUR people did to the Jews 50+ years ago and thereby remedy the current situation in Israel.