ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

http://shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

0 Replies

Translation: Anyone who criticizes Israel, obviously doesn't have it right.

Quote:

I am always prepared to be wrong on just about anything

Well, sh*t, with your track record? One would hope so, by now!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

My last statement was, of course, addressing ican's post.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have no problem whatsoever with A.I. monitoring and reporting war crimes or any other human injustices, and I am one of the first to commend them when they get it right. But the modern U.N. prejudice against Israel is stunning and A.I.'s prejudice against Israel is quite obvious.

Or maybe your conclusion that AI is obviously prejudiced against Israel is the effect of your obvious prejudices against AI. Your first knee-jerk reaction to that article, without having bothered to look into any previous AI reports on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was, "Amnesty International had no intention of criticizing Hizbollah at all until they were accused of being to biased against Israel".

We have established that the opposite is true. You have so far failed to admit that.

Foxfyre wrote:

If it is politically incorrect to point this out, tough toenails. I have as much right to my opinion as you do. I am always prepared to be wrong on just about anything, but at least I've shown how my opinion at least has some basis in fact. So far your 'evidence' for your opinion is far less persuasive.

Sure you have a right to your opinion. Your opinion was that AI had had not intention of criticizing Hezbollah.

My opinion is that AI has criticized Hezbollah. I've posted a link to an earlier report by AI that criticized Hezbollah.

However, I accept the fact that you think the evidence I have posted is less persuasive than your opinion.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I have no problem whatsoever with A.I. monitoring and reporting war crimes or any other human injustices, and I am one of the first to commend them when they get it right. But the modern U.N. prejudice against Israel is stunning and A.I.'s prejudice against Israel is quite obvious.

Or maybe your conclusion that AI is obviously prejudiced against Israel is the effect of your obvious prejudices against AI. Your first knee-jerk reaction to that article, without having bothered to look into any previous AI reports on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was, "Amnesty International had no intention of criticizing Hizbollah at all until they were accused of being to biased against Israel".

We have established that the opposite is true. You have so far failed to admit that.

Foxfyre wrote:
If it is politically incorrect to point this out, tough toenails. I have as much right to my opinion as you do. I am always prepared to be wrong on just about anything, but at least I've shown how my opinion at least has some basis in fact. So far your 'evidence' for your opinion is far less persuasive.

Sure you have a right to your opinion. Your opinion was that AI had had not intention of criticizing Hezbollah.

My opinion is that AI has criticized Hezbollah. I've posted a link to an earlier report by AI that criticized Hezbollah.

However, I accept the fact that you think the evidence I have posted is less persuasive than your opinion.

The thing is I can both praise and criticize. I think most Conservatives can. The fact that I criticize A.I. on this one issue is not a blanket condemnation as testified that I actually also praised A.I. today on this very thread.

But again, I would challenge you to find any phrase in A.I.'s reports that suggests that Israel was in any way justified in any action they took. I showed you where they blunted their criticism of Hizbollah. Show me in any place where they blunt their criticism of Israel.

And then show me where they have ever commended Israel for anything. Ever. There may in fact be something out there that I've never seen, but I have not seen it.

Then compare Israel's overall track record on human rights, democratic principles, etc. compared with those of Hizbollah. Show me where Israel is teaching their kids that being a suicide bomber is a noble ambition or where they are actually strapping bombs on their kids to send into crowds of civilians. Show me where Israel is using women and children as human shields or intentionally putting these at risk. Show me where they condemn Hizbollah for these practices.

Then tell me again how evenhanded A.I. is in their criticism of Israel.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The thing is I can both praise and criticize. I think most Conservatives can.

Unless, of course, the topic is Israel. I haven't seen you criticize Israel at all. I might have missed it, though.

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact that I criticize A.I. on this one issue is not a blanket condemnation as testified that I actually also praised A.I. today on this very thread.

The fact that you criticized AI on this one issue without admitting that you were mistaken in stating that previously, they had only addressed war crimes committed by Israel tells us a lot about your prejudices.

Foxfyre wrote:

But again, I would challenge you to find any phrase in A.I.'s reports that suggests that Israel was in any way justified in any action they took. I showed you where they blunted their criticism of Hizbollah. Show me in any place where they blunt their criticism of Israel.

And then show me where they have ever commended Israel for anything. Ever. There may in fact be something out there that I've never seen, but I have not seen it.

I have posted before how the very part of the sentence that you had cited out of context could be read as an unusual sharp criticism of Hezbollah instead as a "blunted" criticism.

However, I fear that your prejudices won't allow you to take the report for what it is: a condemnation of war crimes of both sides rather than a one-sided attack on Israel.

Nevertheless, your reasoning that Amnesty must be biased against Israel if they don't commend it is patently false. Ironically, that would also mean that AI is biased against the other side, as I haven't seen them commending Hezbollah neither. Funny.

Foxfyre wrote:

Then compare Israel's overall track record on human rights, democratic principles, etc. compared with those of Hizbollah. Show me where Israel is teaching their kids that being a suicide bomber is a noble ambition or where they are actually strapping bombs on their kids to send into crowds of civilians. Show me where Israel is using women and children as human shields or intentionally putting these at risk. Show me where they condemn Hizbollah for these practices.

This is nothing but moral relativism. I can also point out to you that during the conflict, more than 1,200 Lebanese civilians have been killed, whereas only 43 Israelis have died. I could therefore draw the conclusion that the Hezbollah terrorists have a better track record.

Both statements are, of course, ridiculous. If you murder your family, a good track record on caring for your sick grandmother will not change the fact that your actions violated the law. Same here.

Foxfyre wrote:

Then tell me again how evenhanded A.I. is in their criticism of Israel.

AI does criticize, condemn, report everything you've mentioned above. Just because you neither know about it nor have bothered to look it up doesn't change that fact.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

My last statement was, of course, addressing ican's post.

Please explain your logic that leads you to the conclusion that my post is a straw man.

Absent such explanation, your straw man post is itself a straw man, simply because it fails to discuss the actual content of my post.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Please explain your logic that leads you to the conclusion that my post is a straw man.

Uhm.... Sure. Here's your post again.

ican711nm wrote:

Israel knew it lacked completely accurate means to destroy Hezbollah rocket firing sites without killing non-Hezbollahns in the neighborhood. So instead of trying to destroy those Hezbollah rocket firing sites in the midst of non-combatants who were allowing sanctuary to Hezbollah, Israel should have complained to Amnesty International, and then waited for AI's reports. After receiving those reports, Israel should have then appealed to the UN to intervene and stop the rocket firing that was killing their people. While waiting for that, Israel should have moved the remains of its entire non-combatant population into the Negev.

Yeah, right!

And these are your strawmen:

#1: instead of trying to destroy those Hezbollah rocket firing sites [...], Israel should have complained to Amnesty International, and then waited for AI's reports
#2: After receiving those reports, Israel should have then appealed to the UN to intervene and stop the rocket firing that was killing their people
#3: Israel should have moved the remains of its entire non-combatant population into the Negev

Nobody has taken a position that could even be paraphrased to vaguely resemble one of your statements above. Hence: strawmen.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Please explain your logic that leads you to the conclusion that my post is a straw man.

...
And these are your strawmen:

#1: instead of trying to destroy those Hezbollah rocket firing sites [...], Israel should have complained to Amnesty International, and then waited for AI's reports
#2: After receiving those reports, Israel should have then appealed to the UN to intervene and stop the rocket firing that was killing their people
#3: Israel should have moved the remains of its entire non-combatant population into the Negev

Nobody has taken a position that could even be paraphrased to vaguely resemble one of your statements above. Hence: strawmen.

It is true that no body has taken a position that could even be paraphrased to vaguely resemble one of my statements above.

But it is also true that no body other than Foxfyre and others of us have pointed out that Israel had no other equally effective way of protecting its people than doing what it did. And it is also true that you others who have criticized Israel for what it did, have not proposed any acceptable to you, alternative way for Israel to have equally effectively protected its people. All you and like thinking folks do is criticize Israel for past effective ways it has chosen to protect its people. But even in those past cases, y'all have failed to propose acceptable to you, equally effective ways for Israel to have protected its people.

So I proposed tongue-in-cheek a ridiculously ineffective way for Israel to have tried to protect its people to show that Israel wasn't really given by Hezbollah any effective way to protect its people other than the way it chose.

Hence my tongue-in-cheek proposal to demonstrate that. Consequently, that demonstration was not beside the point, but dead on point; it was not a straw man!

0 Replies

I have not read or heard of too many people saying that Israel should not defend them against Hezbollah firing rockets into civilian areas. This is why the accusation is a strawman. What most of the average person was/is saying is that Israel response to the firing of rockets and kidnapping of two soldiers was way out of proportion because they took no care, despite protest to the contrary, to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. The sheer magnitude of the civilian deaths and infrastructure cannot be explained away with the allegation of Hezbollah hiding among civilians. For one thing, some of the time that turned out not to be the case at all and for another, all those deaths, wounded, misplaced of civilians and civilian infrastructure was not worth the cost when considering how little Israel suffered in comparison. Furthermore, Israel has committed war crimes because of what has already been explained and because of using cluster bombs and WP in civilian areas both of which are war crimes. All these actions cancel out any moral high ground Israel may have had to defend herself in the beginning after the kidnapping and the firing of rockets by Hezbollah.

By saying that Israel is wrong; we are not saying Hezbollah is right, what we are saying is that both are wrong. People keep saying, what else was Israel was to do? I don't know but international laws and the CG were not made to be broken just because a country feels it needs to and both sides have broken them.

0 Replies

BBB
Ha'aretz, Israeli Daily, Criticizes Country's Use of Cluster Bombs in Lebanon
By E&P Staff
Published: September 14, 2006

NEW YORK During the recent Israel/Hezbollah war, E&P carried several columns following the news coverage and opinion columns at Ha'aretz, the popular Israeli daily newspaper. While initially very supportive of the Israeli shelling and invasion of Lebanon, the newspaper later offered many probes and commentary on what had gone wrong, and why.

In recent weeks, intense media interest in the conflict during the war has largely evaporated in the U.S., despite the massive destruction in Lebanon and a fierce debate inside Israel over the conduct of the war. Ha'aretz has been at the center of this again, and in recent days has explored its country's use of thousands of indiscriminate cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon -- which go on kiling today.

The newspaper's editorial today was remarkable for its willingness to raise moral issues and take its own government and military to task.

*

During the final days of the war, when it became clear that the Israel Defense Forces had no solution to the ongoing launchings of Katyusha rockets, a decision was made to "flood" the area with cluster bombs, delivered by artillery shells and rockets. This was non-target specific shooting, based on the assumption that the bomblets would cover a large area, possibly destroy Hezbollah rocket launchers and cause as many casualties as possible among its fighters.

A soldier who fired 155mm artillery shells delivering cluster bombs told Haaretz that he was ordered to "flood" the area with these bombs, without having a specific target. A commander of a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) told Haaretz that his order was to "saturate the area." These statements were published in stories by Meron Rapoport on September 8 and 12. More than a million cluster bomblets were dropped in southern Lebanon. Each M-26 rocket fired by an MLRS contains 644 cluster bomblets, capable of covering an area the size of a football field.

Firing at undefined targets is a problem in and of itself. The dilemma it entails is reflected in statements by soldiers who fired cluster bombs during training and recognized that this type of weapon should be used only in a war against a regular army, for the purpose of hitting arms supply convoys or missile batteries - not against civilian areas. But beyond this dilemma, the committee investigating the war should find out whether anyone considered what would happen to the thousands of cluster bomblets that failed to explode, and were therefore transformed into mines spread throughout southern Lebanon.

The cluster bomb is not a banned weapon, but it is described as an "indiscriminate" weapon, which should not be used against targets in civilian areas because, inter alia, it continues to kill once the war is over. Since the cease-fire went into effect, 12 Lebanese civilians have been killed by duds that exploded unexpectedly. Since the percentage of unexploded cluster bomblets ranges from 5 to 30 percent, according to various assessments, southern Lebanon is now an area littered by thousands of bomblets that have not yet exploded.

Questions regarding the IDF's conduct during the war have many implications, both moral and practical. Israel's ability to rally international support depends in part on the distinction it makes between innocent civilians and the enemy. While Hamas and Hezbollah attack civilians as part of their strategy, Israel declares that it does not do so, and that it makes an effort to avoid harming civilians. The decision to drop cluster bombs on villages, with no specified targets; the decision to use these bombs over a large area, making it impossible to know in advance who will be there; and the well-known fact that a large percentage of these munitions will not explode on impact, and will therefore be transformed into mines in an area to which civilians will return, are all further testimony to the flawed decision-making of those who managed the war.

Now, Israel can do little except accede to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's request and assist in marking the areas hit by the cluster bombs, so that there will be no further casualties among Lebanese civilians, who have already been hurt by the war. Significant portions of southern Lebanon have now become minefields. Annan's condemnation was not without basis.

0 Replies

Revel writes

Quote:

I have not read or heard of too many people saying that Israel should not defend them against Hezbollah firing rockets into civilian areas. This is why the accusation is a strawman.

Other than those who say this by insinuation when they say Israel has no right to exist at all, nobody has said that anybody has said that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

What I and a few others are saying is that the anti-Israel crowd here is saying Israel has a right to defend itself, but nobody is saying HOW Israel can be allowed to defend herself. Israel has been criticized soundly by all of you for every single tact they've used to a) rescue their kidnapped soldiers and b) stop the rocket attacks fired by Hizbollah.

Now if there are some suggestions of what might be acceptable to stop hundreds and thousands of rocket attacks fired from within civilian neighborhood, especially those where civilians are present, that WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE to those of you condemning Israel, I'm sure Israel would be happy to have those suggestions.

That's what I have said. That's what Ican has said. That's what several others have said. No straw man. It is a very valid observation and the question is quite valid.

Those on your side say they expect Israel to follow the law. Okay, give Israel some ideas of how they can stop illegal rocket attacks AND follow the law.

0 Replies

Yet another.

Who here constitutes the "anit-Israeli crowd?"

Who here has said that Israel has no right to exist at all?

You're making **** up, Fox--which is typical.

(Thanks for the strawman graphic, OE, i'll cherish that.)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Who here constitutes the "anit-Israeli crowd?"

Do you need a list? Really?

Quote:

Who here has said that Israel has no right to exist at all?

Specifically? no idea. Who has posted many, many articles super-critical of Israel which would imply that they agree with terror organizations and the agenda they have... Make a list. Prolly have many of the same names as the one above would have.

Honestly, it's like you don't read half the threads here.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Who here constitutes the "anit-Israeli crowd?"

Do you need a list? Really?

Quote:
Who here has said that Israel has no right to exist at all?

Specifically? no idea. Who has posted many, many articles super-critical of Israel which would imply that they agree with terror organizations and the agenda they have... Make a list. Prolly have many of the same names as the one above would have.

Honestly, it's like you don't read half the threads here.

A start would be a search of Freedom4Free and Parados' posts on this thread. There have been others but I don't remember the names.

0 Replies

In other words, McWhitey, you can't provide a list of names.

I know of one member, and one member only who would fit on both of those lists, and that is Freedom4free.

So if you want to suggest that there are any others who need inclusion on that list, name them, and provide the posts which support your charge. Put up or shut up.

I know it hasn't occured to you, but criticizing the actions and policies of the Israeli government does not constitute being anti-Israeli, and is not evidence that any one so criticizing the Israeli government doesn't think Israel should exist at all.

Spare us your mealy-mouther rightwingnut tripe, McWhitey. Back it up or shut up.

0 Replies

If you assert that Parados believes that Israel should not exist at all, prove it. Quote a post of Parados which unambiguously states that he does not think that Israel should exist at all.

Even if that were true, two members does not constitute a crowd.

0 Replies

You said NOBODY has said Israel does not have a right to exist. F4F had said that unequivocably and Parados has said that indirectly in his rants on Israel's discriminatory/oppressive policies in his view. Do you own research and admit that your previous statement was wrong.

And then show where I ever said those holding this opinion was a CROWD

CORRECTION: In retrospect, I think it was Infrablue and not Parados. Parados, if I have accused you unjustly, I do apologize.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You said NOBODY has said Israel does not have a right to exist.

This is a lie and you are a liar. At no time did i make a statement even remotely resembling this.

Quote:

F4F had said that unequivocably and Parados has said that indirectly in his rants on Israel's discriminatory/oppressive policies in his view. Do you own research and admit that your previous statement was wrong.

Bullshit, you made the claim, you prove it. I've already acknowledged the goofball F4F, but if you want to smear Parados in that manner, then you'll need to provide the evidence. Given your weak rhetorical skills and standards of evidence, i'm in no way going accept your allegation of Parados indirectly saying anything.

Quote:

And then show where I ever said those holding this opinion was a CROWD

Sure, no problem:

Foxfyre, in post #2264067, wrote:

What I and a few others are saying is that the anti-Israel crowd here is saying Israel has a right to defend itself . . .

0 Replies

Setanta, I submit that you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said, intended, and posted, and I will stop right now before you are able to completely derail this thread.

If you do not like what I post, don't read my posts.

If you don't like me then ignore me.

But anybody with a brain can see that you are misrepresenting me and what I have written, and I will not play your game this morning.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know