Real World Event Discussions
Get real. If someone was shooting rockets into your house trying to kill you...
POSTED BY: DukKati
UPDATED: Monday, August 14, 2006 05:43
VIEWED: 13192
PAGE 11 of 15
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:29 PM
Quote:Don't play games with me; you leapt from one guy doctoring photos to the Lebanese death toll being doctored, not me.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
That's one giant leap you just took there Citizen. I used the doctored photos story to illustrate Hezbollah's propaganda campaign which is much more effective than their bombing campaign IMHO.
Quote:Yes so why is it guilty until proven innocent for any of the 'wrong' sources for you?
Maybe so, but it is still innocent until proven guilty is it not.
Quote:"Maybe so, but it is still innocent until proven guilty is it not."
Let me clarify. If someone is willing to doctor a photo, is it really inconceivable that civilian death tolls could be 'exaggerated' as well?
If the Israeli's are willing to try and prevent and cover up the circumstances of a British citizen's death is it not conceivable that they'd do the same here?
Quote:Now you are confusing the difficulty of getting accurate casualty reports from a war zone and purposefully doctoring the evidence.
Even the 'officials' have a hard time agreeing on numbers.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Don't play games with me; you leapt from one guy doctoring photos to the Lebanese death toll being doctored, not me.
I implied that if photos can be doctored, the death toll can be as well. Never said it was.
Quote:
Yes so why is it guilty until proven innocent for any of the 'wrong' sources for you?
I do not know what you are asking here, please elaborate. What 'wrong' sources are you refering to?
Quote:Quote:"Maybe so, but it is still innocent until proven guilty is it not."
Let me clarify. If someone is willing to doctor a photo, is it really inconceivable that civilian death tolls could be 'exaggerated' as well?
Still never said civilian death tolls were not accurate. I implied that they could be though.
Quote:
If the Israeli's are willing to try and prevent and cover up the circumstances of a British citizen's death is it not conceivable that they'd do the same here?
So Israel is in charge of counting dead Lebanese citizens. Or are you implying that Israel is not being truthful regarding their own civilian casualties?
Quote:
Now you are confusing the difficulty of getting accurate casualty reports from a war zone and purposefully doctoring the evidence.
The Lebanese Government maintains higher civilian deaths than Human Rights Watch. This could be for a number of reasons including the difficulty of geting accurate reports and purposely falsified information.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:30 PM
Quote:Oh come on the implication of holding up the evidence of one thing and then saying "what about this" is not an implication of possibillity but an implication of probabillity.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I implied that if photos can be doctored, the death toll can be as well. Never said it was.
Quote:The sources that do not support Israels altruistic view?
I do not know what you are asking here, please elaborate. What 'wrong' sources are you refering to?
Quote:Are you saying that the IDF is the first military in history not to release enemy casualty assesments?
So Israel is in charge of counting dead Lebanese citizens.
Quote:Either, both.
Or are you implying that Israel is not being truthful regarding their own civilian casualties?
Quote:But this shows a certain bias which is what I was talking about, not saying it's the case but it's also possible that Human Rights Watch's estimates are wrong.
The Lebanese Government maintains higher civilian deaths than Human Rights Watch. This could be for a number of reasons including the difficulty of geting accurate reports and purposely falsified information.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oh come on the implication of holding up the evidence of one thing and then saying "what about this" is not an implication of possibillity but an implication of probabillity.
Now you are talking semantics which could seriously derail this thread, let's leave it at you say potato...
Quote:
The sources that do not support Israels altruistic view?
Has anyone in this thread provided a source contrary to 'Israels altruistic view' which I dismissed out of hand?
Quote:
Are you saying that the IDF is the first military in history not to release enemy casualty assesments?
No.
Quote:Quote:
Or are you implying that Israel is not being truthful regarding their own civilian casualties?
Either, both.
Do not see a point behind Israel misrepresenting their civilian casualties. You would think they might report more dead to lessen the gap and calm outside opinions.
Quote:
not saying it's the case but it's also possible that Human Rights Watch's estimates are wrong.
So who is the be all and end all in civilian casualty rates. Who has the least at stake and can be trusted to provide the most accurate figures as possible?
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 11:14 PM
Quote:It is merely how I read your quote and how such a quote is most often meant, but differing here is probably the best option.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Now you are talking semantics which could seriously derail this thread, let's leave it at you say potato...
Quote:You've whole heartedly supported the idea that just about everything from Lebanon is propaganda (or implying it’s possible) and you go on to say you can't see a reason for Israel doing the same, is this not a lopsided view?
Has anyone in this thread provided a source contrary to 'Israels altruistic view' which I dismissed out of hand?
Quote:Then what was the point in your question?
No.
Quote:The Lebanese are prepared to use propaganda but the Israelis are not?
Do not see a point behind Israel misrepresenting their civilian casualties.
Quote:Who said they aren't? Less of theirs more of yours, it’s a common practice, I believe you are the one implying only the Lebanese may be doing it.
You would think they might report more dead to lessen the gap and calm outside opinions.
Quote:The last one hundred years of media covered warfare says no one, I believe this is my point.
So who is the be all and end all in civilian casualty rates.
Quote:Now you're back to assuming the only way the figures could differ is because they are doctored.
Who has the least at stake and can be trusted to provide the most accurate figures as possible?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You've whole heartedly supported the idea that just about everything from Lebanon is propaganda (or implying it’s possible) and you go on to say you can't see a reason for Israel doing the same, is this not a lopsided view?
I am speaking of Hezbollah not Lebanon, and I do have a lopsided view when comparing Israel to Hezbollah.
Quote:
The Lebanese are prepared to use propaganda but the Israelis are not?
Hezbollah is not only prepared to use propaganda, they are using it. There is less documented proof of Israel's propaganda machine, but it is still churning away. Speaking of which, how did the investigation of the bombing of the UN outpost by Israel turn out?
Quote:
Quote:Who said they aren't? Less of theirs more of yours, it’s a common practice, I believe you are the one implying only the Lebanese may be doing it.
You would think they might report more dead to lessen the gap and calm outside opinions.
Once again let me change Lebanese for Hezbollah.
My point was out of the thousands of missiles launched by Hezbollah, Israel is reporting 50 or so civilian deaths. The Lebanese Government is reporting their civilian deaths at approx. 500. If Israel was 'doctoring' their figures, why not report them much higher to closer mirror those of Lebanon.
Quote:
Quote:Now you're back to assuming the only way the figures could differ is because they are doctored.
Who has the least at stake and can be trusted to provide the most accurate figures as possible?
That was not my intention. Hezbollah can report high civilian casualties to create anti-Israeli sentiment. The Lebanese Government can report high civilian casualty rates to increase pressure on the UN and increase foreign aid. Israel can report low civilian casualty rates (in Lebanon)to keep the UN off their backs and improve their world wide optics. Human Rights Watch seems to have no interest other than factual reporting. Not sure how you got doctoring out of that.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:47 AM
I have only one thing to add, since it's pointedly obvious this is just gonna degenerate further, and that thing is something for CTS, as reference, and not something imma bother debating with obvious shills.
Another point against, CTS - is their proven history of spying on us.
Jonathan Pollard.
The Comverse Infosystems/Comverse Technology scandal.
David A. Tenenbaum
Ariel J. Weinmann
Shortly after 9-11, Fox news ran a four part special on more spying activity, but it was quickly yanked, and they've done everything in their power to expunge even a hint of its existance - a stupid move which drew far more attention than simply airing it and leaving be.
AIPAC and current investigations.
These are not isolated incidents, simply a quick once-over highlight of an aggressive espionage campaign on behalf of our so-called allies.
While no doubt all countries spy on each other to some degree (and we pulled some doozies via submarine in our time, mind you..) if, for example, Iran had stolen nuclear technology secrets from us and sold em to the Russians, our reaction woulda been a little different, wouldn't it now ?
The logic of supporting someone who treats US as an enemy escapes me.
You may now resume nitpicking.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:52 AM
Quote:As a general rule, I will always seek to go the rational route. I carefully rationalize and evaluate all of these matters. That’s the only way that I believe a fair and intelligent person can come to a thoughtful conclusion. I’m not going to condemn Israel because of an accusation, only their actions and their reasons for those actions.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm betting you'll go the rationale route. But I hoping I'll lose money.
Civilian deaths are always tragic, and they are even more tragic when, in hindsight, they appear to be in vain, but does that constitute a policy of targeting civilians or just a mistake? Part of the rule of warfare is that targets must be chosen for their military value, which is widely understand claim from the Geneva Conventions, that even your cited article references. However, if your enemies don’t follow the rule of war, it can be difficult or even impossible to evaluate a military target. When your enemy dresses in civilian clothes, how do you distinguish a military target from a civilian? When the military target reveals itself by killing you? When your enemy hides behind civilians (which is a war crime) how do you pick the military target without hitting a civilian target? Do you just let your enemy fire rockets at you ad noseum, from behind their abuse of Geneva Conventions, until you run out of civilians or they run out of rockets? When your enemy blends with civilians and doesn’t identify themselves with a banner, who is really to blame when you make a mistake and hit a civilian target you thought was an enemy?
Okay, so maybe Israel intended to kill civilians in this case. I’ll consider it, for the sake of argument. My first question is why?
I know why Hezbollah is doing it. Hezbollah is firing missiles into Israel from heavily civilian areas in the hopes that Israel will defend itself and fire on their position, thereby killing Lebanese civilians which they will quickly blame on Israel and you’ll believe every word of it. It works well for Hezbollah, because they're just that insdious, and most people don’t bother to think about what’s going on, they just emotionally respond to the dead bodies and draw the simplest (often irrational) conclusion. You see a dead body and you think you know all there is to know and that attitude is a terrorist’s best friend.
But why is Israel doing it? What could they possibly have to gain by intentionally targeting soft targets with no military value? They are loosing the propaganda war, so why would Israel go and intentionally target civilians to help Hezbollah’s propaganda campaign? Does that make sense to you? Citizen couldn’t answer this; he simply decided they were doing it for no apparent reason. But “go ask them” is not a good enough answer for me. I’m not prepared to simply dismiss logic and rational thought and just assume that Israelis kill civilians because that’s what Israelis do. It’s just not a satisfying answer. So do you have a better answer then “go ask them?” If not, then I would say that you really don’t have a convincing case for Israeli’s targeting civilians either, just an accusation, because targeting missile batteries mistakenly, might be tragic, it might even by negligent homicide if there was reason to believe that the shooter didn’t follow orders and wasn’t cautious enough or even had a grudge, but it’s not a policy of targeting civilians, and unlike any of the civilians killed by Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel has prosecuted such derelictions of duty that result in civilian deaths.
Hezbollah and Hamas on the other hand have well defined military targets in the Israeli Defense Force. They simply choose to target civilians as a matter of policy. And it works well for them, but it doesn’t work very well for Israel.
And once again, I'm not saying that Israel doesn't or hasn't targeted civilians, I'm simply saying that by far, Hezbollah is the worse of the two and there is no moral equivalence.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Where as you haven't got an opinion at all. It's hardly surprising I comment on American FORIEGN policy (rarely on domestic if at all) since such things effect me and most the threads around here are or end up being about American foriegn policy.
Originally posted by kaneman:
Hey citz, you frog faced limey. Glad to see I haunt you in your dreams. I think I'll be nice today...So I'll have to ignore you posts...But before I go into positive mode, Eat me. Oh, not all Americans that call Brits...limeys or French.......frogs are rednecks, psst...read a poll on American feelings towards France........ I read your posts and can't believe you don't live hear in the states. All you do is sit around and bash the US and our policies(even domestic policy), you are a pompous ass idiot. You have a comment on anything from the state sales tax in Utah to proposition 56 in Hartford, CT........Give it a fu*king rest. OOOOH, Gotta go ...Tea time.
I called you a redneck because you are a redneck, go back to stringing up the 'blacks' you racist little prick.
That and another give away is that you couldn't string a sentence together if your life depended on it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
HaHa...is calling someone a redneck any different than calling someone a nigger? a spic? a chink? limey? For some liberal douche bag to stoop so low, WOW. What is your definition of a redneck anyway?..A southern white male? ignorant American? And why would you ever have a comment on American domestic policy anyway...Where is RiveR with pictures of your ugly mugg ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:35 AM
im curious what your opinions are of this clip of OReilly
now im sure a lot of you know already that Isreal occupied s. Lebanon for many years back in the early 80's..but i really had no idea to what extent. were you aware that since then, Israel has launched 11,000+ rockets into Lebanon, as compared to 100+ from Hezbollah? that was a statistic i was unaware of, but i find curious
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME