DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 let it go DoP. your attempt to deny the war crimes by israel is as ridiculous as those who try to deny the holocaust.the evidence is there. not only from the palestinians but also from israeli soldiers. there is of course the investigations done by the UN and they've determined that israel has committed war crimes. how do you bring yourself to deny all this evidence? you're a dishonest person. Your 'evidence' is suspect as are your Hamas friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Your 'evidence' is suspect as are your Hamas friends. it's not "my" evidence. it's evidence given by israeli soldiers, palestinian eyewitnesses, videos and investigators who have examined the allegations. why do you keep calling hamas my friends? they're not my friends. just because israel does something wrong and i talk about it, it doesn't mean that i support hamas. not sure how many times i've told you this. so why are you denying all the evidence showing israel committed war crimes? does it pain you to admit that israel is wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 it's not "my" evidence. it's evidence given by israeli soldiers, palestinian eyewitnesses, videos and investigators who have examined the allegations.why do you keep calling hamas my friends? they're not my friends. just because israel does something wrong and i talk about it, it doesn't mean that i support hamas. not sure how many times i've told you this. so why are you denying all the evidence showing israel committed war crimes? does it pain you to admit that israel is wrong? Does it pain you that your friends are Nazis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/mi...8israel.html?hp Seems not everyone agrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Does it pain you that your friends are Nazis? ? what's wrong with you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/mi...8israel.html?hpSeems not everyone agrees. Pretty much what CAMERA claimed. Testiminy by people who did not see the event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/mi...8israel.html?hpSeems not everyone agrees. yes. it seems like it's the word of the IDF against a few IDF soldiers who decided to speak out, palestinian eyewitnesses, photos, videos and investigation done by human rights groups. how far will you two go to deny this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 IDF soldiers who spoke out against things they did not witness....the horror ! There testimony is a valid as Dub's.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/mi...8israel.html?hpSeems not everyone agrees. This article certainly calls into question the validity of these so called "war crimes admissions".Not to mention the New York Times is a pretty left wing paper which one would assume means they are more likely to be sympathetic to Hamas led Palestinians than Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This article certainly calls into question the validity of these so called "war crimes admissions".Not to mention the New York Times is a pretty left wing paper which one would assume means they are more likely to be sympathetic to Hamas led Palestinians than Israel. lol @ NYT being sympathetic to hamas. are you the third stooge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/mi...8israel.html?hpSeems not everyone agrees. Seems you should read what the soldiers themselves had to say: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072475.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Seems you should read what the soldiers themselves had to say:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072475.html They testimony of people who did not witness the events is very compelling. I heard one soldier personbally shot 10,000 babies. Must be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 They testimony of people who did not witness the events is very compelling. I heard one soldier personbally shot 10,000 babies. Must be true. They were there. Why are you avoiding reading the evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 They were there.Why are you avoiding reading the evidence? I yake it you are very good at linking but not so good a reading. They were not there..... "One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious - I don't know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood." gullible suckers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) I yake it you are very good at linking but not so good a reading.They were not there..... gullible suckers.... Ignorance is bliss, they say! So perhaps you missed this: "At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this? "From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault Edited March 27, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Ignorance is bliss, they say! Must be, you always seem overjoyed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Must be, you always seem overjoyed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 They testimony of people who did not witness the events is very compelling. I heard one soldier personbally shot 10,000 babies. Must be true. Reminds me of the Sgt Speirs myth in Band of Brothers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYSbC3uUF0k Eventually the myth grew to the point he had shot thousands of POWs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted March 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 "At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this? "From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault sounds like this guy was there. are you going say that he wasn't there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) Does it pain you that your friends are Nazis? Does it pain you that you are an a-hole? Edited March 28, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 "At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?"From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault sounds like this guy was there. are you going say that he wasn't there? He was there, and that's what he was ordered to do with his troops. Instead, he gave people 5 minutes to get out. (Link is above somewhere.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Does it pain you that you are an a-hole? Like dub, you're either... 1} Ignorant of Hamas. 2} Naive about Hamas. 3} A memeber of Hamas in spirit. 4} An actual member of Hamas. Only you know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 "At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?"From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault sounds like this guy was there. are you going say that he wasn't there? Sounds like the word "supposed" means it may or may not have happened....given he mentions murder but does not say antine was killed what in fact he is saying according to his training the operation was supposed o go that way....no mention of dead..... IOW he wasn't there to witness any civilians being killed, he just supposes if civilians didn't leave when asked, he supposes they might be shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 The damage could be old or new. Well, according to that Guardian reporter, it was new, according to the doctors he interviewed, it was new. According to the UN, the damage on their building was new. I'm sorry, but you cannot expect us to value the personal hunch of some random person on the Internet over the reporting of professionals like Journalists, Doctors, and UN Staff who were and/or are on the ground in Gaza when these incidents happened. The kids could be making sh*t up. And so could you, and so could the Israeli military. That's why we have to trust independent observers like journalists, NGO's, UN staff, etc, that when they investigate these claims and the stories check out, that we don't immediately invalidate their findings because they are inconvenient to our worldview. Honestly, if you're going to wilfully accept reports on Hamas' human rights abuses, which are extensively documented, than you can't turn around and immediately invalidate the findings of these same news agencies or NGO's when they find abuses committed by Israel. So if you go to court and you're a doctor, your testimony will be considered truth due to your social position? Just like in Canada, testimony given by professionals while on the job has considerable weight because they are held to a professional standard of ethics and duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 (edited) Well, according to that Guardian reporter, it was new, according to the doctors he interviewed, it was new. According to the UN, the damage on their building was new.I'm sorry, but you cannot expect us to value the personal hunch of some random person on the Internet over the reporting of professionals like Journalists, Doctors, and UN Staff who were and/or are on the ground in Gaza when these incidents happened. And so could you, and so could the Israeli military. That's why we have to trust independent observers like journalists, NGO's, UN staff, etc, that when they investigate these claims and the stories check out, that we don't immediately invalidate their findings because they are inconvenient to our worldview. Honestly, if you're going to wilfully accept reports on Hamas' human rights abuses, which are extensively documented, than you can't turn around and immediately invalidate the findings of these same news agencies or NGO's when they find abuses committed by Israel. Just like in Canada, testimony given by professionals while on the job has considerable weight because they are held to a professional standard of ethics and duty. We can never know the 'thing' in itself. Kant, I believe. However, Pallywood's lies tip the scales somewhat towards the Israelis. Hamas use 'experts' as well...and seems to fool the leftards every time. Edited March 29, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.