LET GAZA LIVE! - a global outcry

@Montana,

Quote:

I'm not so sure our voices can't change things, which is why I'm voicing as much as I can

I understand what you're saying about influence. Tomorrow I will be attending my second rally (in 2 weeks) in my city, in support of the people of Gaza. I don't really know what that achieves. Something to do with trying to add my voice to the world-wide pressure for sanity to prevail. In any case, apart from this sort of activity (& writing to newspaper editors, etc) one feels very powerless to influence life & death events for the Gazans. But i do know it's important to do something. Sigh.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Now as to the use of white phosphorus, the double talk from the military, the US government is everything you expect of war criminals.

Quote:
White phosphorus use in Iraq

Legality

The use of White Phosphorus as an obscurant is legal, however its use on personnel targets is banned by Article III of the Geneva Conventions as an incendiary weapon,

Well, no. Article III of the Geneva Conventions deals with basic rights of people in a war that is not between two states.

What you meant to say is Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on certain conventional weapons.

(That may be a bit of a nitpick, but given the number of retards in this thread tonight who have falsely accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about, I think I'm justified in pointing out that I'm the only person in this thread who actually knows the what the Geneva Conventions say.)

However, if you take a look at Protocol III, you'll find that is does not ban white phosphorus in any way.

It does place restrictions on its use as an incendiary in a civilian area -- requiring extra measures to prevent collateral damage -- but that isn't anything like a ban.

If you'd like to look around Protocol III to see if there is any outright ban in there, here is a handy link for you:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515

Here is a link if you'd like to look around "Article" 3 for your supposed ban:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590006

JTT wrote:

and by Article II of the Geneva Conventions as a chemical weapon (lethal through dust inhalation and through the mechanism of absorption through contact burns)

Article II of the Geneva Conventions:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590005

While I don't want to be too hard on you (after all, by trying to address the issue, you showed more intellectual honesty than the other people who complained about me telling the truth), might I suggest that you actually read and understand the Geneva Conventions before you make proclamations as to what they say?

JTT wrote:

A declassified US Intelligence document[12] from 1991 confirms the American stance that WP is a chemical as well as an incendiary weapon, stating in its summary "IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS."
Saddam's use of WP in 1991 was included on the list of war crimes which was used in part justification of the 2003 invasion.
The US Army Battle Book - Field Manual 100-3, published in 1999 by the US Army Command and General Staff College at Ft Leavenworth, KS [13]further confirms the American stance that the use of WP on human targets is a war crime, stating in Section III (Fire Support) paragraph section 5-11 para b subpara iii that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

JTT: But wait a second. You don't like the rules, then change the rule book.

Can anyone say "big time hypocrisy".

It is true that that document wrongly called WP a chemical weapon in order to demonize Saddam, but that doesn't change the reality that it is not a chemical weapon.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Oralloy wants reporting from embedded USA reporters who view things from the security of the Green Zone where they are fed pablum in an air-conditioned lounge from a group of Class A war criminals.

That's what he's been raised on and if you think for a moment that he's changing his diet now, then y'all got anot
her think coming.

Liar.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Endymion has shown you to be a liar, but then I knew that already.

Liar.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Hey, let's stop giving oralloy the attention s/he craves!

Oh look. The anti-Semite is still whining because I told the truth. Laughing

msolga wrote:

I'll bet you no one else pays any such attention to his/her opinions in real life! (outside of folk with exactly the same biases, of course! )

Well, no. I manage to have decent conversations with intelligent people.

The fact that you aren't capable of having an intelligent conversation with me is your own shortcoming.

msolga wrote:

Oralloy, come back & argue when you've read up a bit!

You really shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own ignorance.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If an anti-semite is someone who disagrees with the isralie government than please include me. I hope this dosent make me anti american because I dont agree with my government on the isralie question but if it does so be it.

0 Replies

The practice of labeling anyone who does not enthusiastically agree with the Israeli position"an anti-Semite has got to stop! There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.

But I have plenty of disagreement with the Israeli position.

It has gotten to the point where non-Jews simply do not speak up on these kinds of issues because they do not want to go through the nonsense SOME Jews think is deserved for any non-Jew who has “the gall” to speak up against Israeli policy.

It sucks!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

rabel22 wrote:

If an anti-semite is someone who disagrees with the isralie government than please include me. I hope this dosent make me anti american because I dont agree with my government on the isralie question but if it does so be it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The practice of labeling anyone who does not enthusiastically agree with the Israeli position"an anti-Semite has got to stop! There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.

But I have plenty of disagreement with the Israeli position.

It has gotten to the point where non-Jews simply do not speak up on these kinds of issues because they do not want to go through the nonsense SOME Jews think is deserved for any non-Jew who has “the gall” to speak up against Israeli policy.

It sucks!

I may as well answer both at once.

The nature of the disagreement is key I think. Certainly just disagreeing with the Israeli government does not make one an anti-Semite.

But many anti-Semites try to pursue their anti-Jew agenda by making horrific false charges against the Israeli government. If someone is just going around demonizing Israel on bogus charges, I don't see why that shouldn't be denounced as anti-Semitism.

The same can apply to America. Nothing wrong with simply disagreeing with the government. But if someone is going around falsely accusing America of horrors we haven't even come close to committing, that could cross over into anti-Americanism.

That said, what is the disagreement here exactly? The Israeli government is only defending their people against Gazan aggression.

Is Israel wrong to engage in self-defense?

Should Israel just roll over and let the Gazans murder all the Israeli children?

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Frank thinks Israel needs to be moved, i.e. out of land which slammites view as theirs. Problem is, slammites view the whole earth as theirs; Israel is simply the topic on the front burner at present.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralloy wrote:

Quote:

The nature of the disagreement is key I think. Certainly just disagreeing with the Israeli government does not make one an anti-Semite.

I’m glad you don’t. MANY Jew, however do! And that was the reason I wrote: “The practice of labeling anyone who does not enthusiastically agree with the Israeli position"an anti-Semite has got to stop! There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.”

Quote:

But many anti-Semites try to pursue their anti-Jew agenda by making horrific false charges against the Israeli government. If someone is just going around demonizing Israel on bogus charges, I don't see why that shouldn't be denounced as anti-Semitism.

Neither do I. But what does that have to do with what I said???

Quote:

That said, what is the disagreement here exactly? The Israeli government is only defending their people against Gazan aggression.

Is Israel wrong to engage in self-defense?

Should Israel just roll over and let the Gazans murder all the Israeli children?

No…but I think the response should be proportional…and I do not think it has been proportional at all.

AND…I think that the response is going to end up being counter-productive.

I think the war in Iraq was counter-productive for the US. I think there are MORE terrorists…exerting greater commitment…now than before we attacked. I think the war, supposedly designed to fight terrorism…has enabled terrorism…has stregnthened it. Just as I think this war in Gaza will stregnthen Hamas and haters of Israel more than it will ease in that area.

Is there something wrong with feeling that way?

Does feeling that way make me anti-American or anti-Semitic?

Why then do non-Jews have to feel so uncomfortable commenting in this area for fear of being branded anti-Semitic?

Yes, as Gunga mentioned, I think it was a mistake to set up Israel right there in the center of its most deadly enemies. Many Zionists also thought that way while the planning was going on. I would like to see Israel safe. I think the best way to have the state of Israel stay safe is to move it somewhere else, preferably to the United States.

It ain’t ever gonna happen…so I am articulating it simply as one solution that has a better chance of working than any other I can see.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why then do non-Jews have to feel so uncomfortable commenting in this area for fear of being branded ?

Exactly, Frank.

I think branding a person "anti-Semitic" is sometimes used as a tactic, to stifle debate.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
The nature of the disagreement is key I think. Certainly just disagreeing with the Israeli government does not make one an anti-Semite.

I’m glad you don’t. MANY Jew, however do! And that was the reason I wrote: “The practice of labeling anyone who does not enthusiastically agree with the Israeli position"an anti-Semite has got to stop! There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.”

It is possible that they are so used to having outrageous charges leveled against them by anti-Semites, that when someone merely disagrees with them they just automatically assume it is just one more outrageous attack and dismiss it without considering it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
But many anti-Semites try to pursue their anti-Jew agenda by making horrific false charges against the Israeli government. If someone is just going around demonizing Israel on bogus charges, I don't see why that shouldn't be denounced as anti-Semitism.

Neither do I. But what does that have to do with what I said???

I was just pointing out that some criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitism.

I don't think I've ever accused you of saying anything like that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
That said, what is the disagreement here exactly? The Israeli government is only defending their people against Gazan aggression.

Is Israel wrong to engage in self-defense?

Should Israel just roll over and let the Gazans murder all the Israeli children?

No…but I think the response should be proportional…and I do not think it has been proportional at all.

Proportionality requires that the expected military advantage of an attack outweigh the expected collateral damage from the attack.

Have they made any attacks where the expected collateral damage was excessive compared to the expected military gains?

Frank Apisa wrote:

AND…I think that the response is going to end up being counter-productive.

I think the war in Iraq was counter-productive for the US. I think there are MORE terrorists…exerting greater commitment…now than before we attacked. I think the war, supposedly designed to fight terrorism…has enabled terrorism…has stregnthened it. Just as I think this war in Gaza will stregnthen Hamas and haters of Israel more than it will ease in that area.

Is there something wrong with feeling that way?

I am not sure that you are correct in your assessment of the negative outcome. But there is certainly nothing wrong with thinking that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Does feeling that way make me anti-American or anti-Semitic?

No.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why then do non-Jews have to feel so uncomfortable commenting in this area for fear of being branded anti-Semitic?

Unfortunately legitimate disagreement can sometimes not be recognized for what it is when people are being barraged by an overwhelming number of unfair attacks. Given the sheer hatred that is directed at Jews and Israelis all the time, they just get conditioned to automatically dismiss all criticism.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yes, as Gunga mentioned, I think it was a mistake to set up Israel right there in the center of its most deadly enemies. Many Zionists also thought that way while the planning was going on. I would like to see Israel safe. I think the best way to have the state of Israel stay safe is to move it somewhere else, preferably to the United States.

It ain’t ever gonna happen…so I am articulating it simply as one solution that has a better chance of working than any other I can see.

Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jews. The Muslims invaded illegally some 1400 years ago. If anyone should have to resettle somewhere else, it shouldn't be the Israelis.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The nature of the disagreement is key I think. Certainly just disagreeing with the Israeli government does not make one an anti-Semite.

But many anti-Semites try to pursue their anti-Jew agenda by making horrific false charges against the Israeli government. If someone is just going around demonizing Israel on bogus charges, I don't see why that shouldn't be denounced as anti-Semitism.

So could you point out any instances of "horrific false charges" & "bogus charges" made against the Israeli government on this particular thread, oralloy?
I think the comments you responded to here by name-calling were actually ones you didn't like, or disagreed with.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I think branding a person "anti-Semitic" is sometimes used as a tactic, to stifle debate.

I hope you aren't characterizing your namecalling and disingenuous tactics as "debate".

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
The nature of the disagreement is key I think. Certainly just disagreeing with the Israeli government does not make one an anti-Semite.

But many anti-Semites try to pursue their anti-Jew agenda by making horrific false charges against the Israeli government. If someone is just going around demonizing Israel on bogus charges, I don't see why that shouldn't be denounced as anti-Semitism.

So could you point out any instances of "horrific false charges" & "bogus charges" made against the Israeli government on this particular thread, oralloy?

I already did -- just before you jumped in with name-calling and disingenuous tactics. They were my first posts in this thread (were on page 5 for reference).

msolga wrote:

I think the comments you responded to here by name-calling were actually ones you didn't like, or disagreed with.

Excuse me hypocrite, but you are the only person in this thread who has behaved that way.

I would never stoop to your level and engage in such tactics myself.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No I'm not, orralloy. I said you were ignorant & bigotted in your posts here & suggested you do a bit more research from widely-respected media outlets on the subject. Apart from anything else, I think the use of white phosporus (which you defended) on civilians in Gaza is indefensible. Also, labelling someone a "liar" or an "anti-Semite" constantly, simply because you disagree with what they're saying, is not exactly a useful contribution to a debate.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I already did

Sorry, but you absolutely did not.

If you want to be taken seriously, then please point out these instances of "horrific false charges" & "bogus charges" on this thread.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

No I'm not, oralloy. I said you were ignorant & bigotted in your posts here

And that was an outright lie. All I did was point out that some of the more extravagant allegations made against Israel were fabrications.

msolga wrote:

suggested you do a bit more research from widely-respected media outlets on the subject.

A bit impossible for me to do "more" research, since I already know everything they say on the subject.

msolga wrote:

Apart from anything else, I think the use of white phosporus (which you defended) on civilians in Gaza is indefensible.

Israel is not targeting civilians with white phosphorus. (Nor are they targeting civilians with any other weapon for that matter.)

White phosphorus is a perfectly legitimate weapon. There is certainly nothing wrong with Israel using it.

msolga wrote:

Also, labelling someone a "liar" or an "anti-Semite" constantly, simply because you disagree with what they're saying, is not exactly a useful contribution to a debate.

Your characterization of your name-calling as "debate" is ludicrous.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
I already did

Sorry, but you absolutely did not.

Sure I did. It is what set off your name calling.

msolga wrote:

If you want to be taken seriously, then please point out these instances of "horrific false charges" & "bogus charges" on this thread.

Well, there was the false allegation that Israel was violating the law by using white phosphorus.

There was the false allegation that Israel is targeting civilians.

There was the false allegation that Israel was using experimental weapons (which was expressed in a tone that would lead someone to think that this was a horrific crime if they didn't stop to think about it).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.”

Not on a conscious level perhaps...

No Jews were dying in the 1940s because they could not get out of nazi-controlled territory; several million of them died because they could not get INTO any other country. That was partly due to anti-semitism and in larger part because of a depression going on and being prolonged by the brain-dead policies of Franklyn Roosevelt.

THAT is the rationale for wanting a Jewish state. As far as "palestinians" go, they HAVE a state, i.e. the area in green on the map:

There has never been any sort of a country called "palestine" or any sort of a "palestinian" nation. Those fuckers are basically just other slammites who could be put anywhere in the green area of the map and likely would have been long since if they were decent people instead of murdering savages. They could still be put in many parts of the green area if the world were to insist on it.

Israel of course is the minuscule sliver of land along the east coast of the Med which slammites feel constitutes some sort of an intolerable salient into their turf.

1 Reply

LET GAZA LIVE! - a global outcry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know