Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'

bush_cheney2004 · July 4, 2009

.....you guys are apologists for a state that commits war crimes. put that on your resume.

"Apologist"? Some are far more than that....try "ardent supporter" or " enthusiastic foreign aid taxpayer", or perhaps "unwavering ally". It is all over my resume.

So how does that make you "feel"?

KrustyKidd · July 5, 2009

that's an example of you making shit up.
here is me calling you a liar, again:

contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants.

from the report.

Never said they forced them. Said they used them and, used them they did. That's one of the reasons there were so many civilian casualties. Here, from your little report you keep gong on about;

At 11.30am on 27 December 2008, without warning, Israeli forces began a devastating bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip codenamed Operation “Cast Lead”. Its stated aim was to end rocket attacks into Israel by armed groups affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with trying to stop rocket attacks do you? And, seeing as how Hamas does this from Gaza, refuses to negotiate as per their charter, going after them in their area of operations seems fair to me.

By 18 January 2009, when unilateral ceasefires were announced by both Israel and Hamas, some 1,400 Palestinians had been killed, including some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground, leaving many thousands homeless and the already dire economy in ruins.

So all this time, Hamas had the power to stop the action by Israel. You don't see anything wrong with this Dub? Hamas uses populated areas as a war zone from which to attack, then hides in same, then when Israel attempts to stop Hamas, they are branded war criminals even though Hamas has every opportunity to not conduct those operations, turn themselves in or, negotiate a ceasefire.

I think that if you desire peace, you might try berating Hamas a little. Ever try that or is it just Jews that deserve your ire?

dub · July 5, 2009

Never said they forced them. Said they used them and, used them they did. That's one of the reasons there were so many civilian casualties. Here, from your little report you keep gong on about;

you lied. stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

the report has confirmed that hamas did not use the civilians as human shields. your link to the speech proves nothing.

you wanted me to show you when you lie? i did.

now continue to try to weasel your way out of it.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with trying to stop rocket attacks do you? And, seeing as how Hamas does this from Gaza, refuses to negotiate as per their charter, going after them in their area of operations seems fair to me.
So all this time, Hamas had the power to stop the action by Israel. You don't see anything wrong with this Dub? Hamas uses populated areas as a war zone from which to attack, then hides in same, then when Israel attempts to stop Hamas, they are branded war criminals even though Hamas has every opportunity to not conduct those operations, turn themselves in or, negotiate a ceasefire.

I think that if you desire peace, you might try berating Hamas a little. Ever try that or is it just Jews that deserve your ire?

you've reduced yourself to a babbling fool where there are just too many holes in what you type. you've become useless like DoP.

the report by amnesty has shown, indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets including ambulances. these were done by precision guided missiles from drones. all evidence collected shows that there were no militants around where many of these civilian targets were. israel says otherwise but has yet been able to show any proof of this. why? because they're lying just like you have been doing frequently.

there are incidents after incidents in the report showing israel's attacks which constitute war crimes.

stop babbling with half-assed posts and instead, if you really believe israel has not committed war crimes, discuss all these incidents that have been shown by amnesty.

or you can make it easy and do what DoP does; say that all these human rights organizations are being tricked by hamas. what a wanker.

deal with this report from page 48:

2.1 PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS USED AS “HUMAN SHIELDS”

During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the

Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground-floor room while they used the rest of their

house as a military base and sniper position – effectively using the families, both adults and

children, as “human shields” and putting them at risk.72 While soldiers wore protective body

armour and helmets and shielded themselves behind sandbags as they fired from the houses,

the Palestinian inhabitants of the houses had no such protection.

the evidence and report follows this.

KrustyKidd · July 6, 2009

deal with this report from page 48:

The same report written by Jew haters like you? Yes, that should be taken seriously! :lol:

JB Globe · July 6, 2009

Have you seen 1300+ bodies? You'd think Hamas would have lined them up for photo ops.

As I've told you before, the body count was verified by the Red Cross/Red Crescent - which as I've told you before, are the same organization.

If you're going to dismiss the numbers of dead in Gaza because you don't trust the Red Cross/Red Crescent, than I'll have to remind you of this when you're quoting Red Cross stats in the future in some other conflict zone.

JB Globe · July 6, 2009

Israel, on the other hand, faces a daily struggle for its existence

Israel absolutely does not face a daily struggle for its existence.

DogOnPorch · July 6, 2009

As I've told you before, the body count was verified by the Red Cross/Red Crescent - which as I've told you before, are the same organization.
If you're going to dismiss the numbers of dead in Gaza because you don't trust the Red Cross/Red Crescent, than I'll have to remind you of this when you're quoting Red Cross stats in the future in some other conflict zone.

Miss this bit??

Those are your words. There may well be 1300 casualties. My point is the majority were Hamas or they'd have made a huge PR ploy of sending the wounded to Egypt...like myself and other mentioned in threads from this previous winter. If you recall, a single Hamas delegate arrived at the Egyptian border claiming there was too much paperwork involved to move the injured. But, he'd take all the supplies...no worries there.

M.Dancer · July 6, 2009

you're okay with breaking international law and i'm not.

Then start a thread about palestinian war crimes and see if you can do it with out your usual jew hating spittal and froth...

dub · July 6, 2009

Then start a thread about palestinian war crimes and see if you can do it with out your usual jew hating spittal and froth...

the title of the thread says 'committed by israel and hamas'.

i don't think anyone disputes the crimes committed by hamas (firing rockets into civilian territories), is there?

so what say you, dancer?

dub · July 6, 2009

The same report written by Jew haters like you? Yes, that should be taken seriously!

what?

are you saying that all these organizations criticizing israel's actions that go against international law, jew haters?

JB Globe · July 6, 2009

Miss this bit??

No, I read that part where you theorized that most of the dead were Hamas fighters.

I'm not sure how your personal hunch invalidates the findings of one of the world's most respected international organizations.

Bonam · July 6, 2009

No, I read that part where you theorized that most of the dead were Hamas fighters.
I'm not sure how your personal hunch invalidates the findings of one of the world's most respected international organizations.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Casualties:

709 militants

295 civilians (89 children, 49 women)

162 unidentified

Total: 1166

709 qualifies as "most" of 1166.

DogOnPorch · July 6, 2009

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull
Casualties:

709 militants

295 civilians (89 children, 49 women)

162 unidentified

Total: 1166

709 qualifies as "most" of 1166.

Yup...and thanks.

We ALL know very little of the actual fighting. This would include the Red Cross...Amnesty International and various posters...myself included. I didn't get the Hamas tour. But, I do recall the news stories from January when we went over the conflict here @ Mapleleaf on a day-by-day basis. Hamas did state that the wounded would not be evacuated to Egypt as there was too much paperwork of all things. But they did send a guy down to the Rafah crossing to steal pick-up the supplies destined for civilians.

KrustyKidd · July 7, 2009

what?
are you saying that all these organizations criticizing israel's actions that go against international law, jew haters?

A lot of them are. In any case, AI admits bias when dealing with democracies vs more repressed societies.

From Wiki

AI admits to reporting disproportionately on relatively more democratic and open countries, arguing that its intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world’s human rights abuses, but rather to apply the pressure of public opinion to encourage improvements.[

AI Link

In other words, it is easier for them to interview and photograph during the Hamas wine and cheese tour as they will certainly bash Israel than it is to tour Israel and interview and photograph rocket damage fairly, then get beaten and shot for being Israeli puppets when they go to interview people in Gaza.

dub · July 7, 2009

A lot of them are. In any case, AI admits bias when dealing with democracies vs more repressed societies.

a lot of them are anti-jew? lets pretend that "AI admits bias when dealing with democracies vs more repressed societies". does that make them anti-jew?

how is the red cross anti-jew?

what about human rights watch? how are they anti-jew?

you seem to equate criticism of israel to being anti-jew. it seems that you're a little confused.

dub · July 7, 2009

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull
Casualties:

709 militants

295 civilians (89 children, 49 women)

162 unidentified

Total: 1166

709 qualifies as "most" of 1166.

those are figures from the IDF. the IDF is known to lie. Red cross is a reputable organization who has been around for over a century. their main objective is not to gain land, but to save lives of all people around the world.

the redcross is not the only expert organization that does not agree with IDF's body count. there are also amnesty and HRW and numerous others.

KrustyKidd · July 7, 2009

those are figures from the IDF. the IDF is known to lie. Red cross is a reputable organization who has been around for over a century. their main objective is not to gain land, but to save lives of all people around the world.
the redcross is not the only expert organization that does not agree with IDF's body count. there are also amnesty and HRW and numerous others.

Hell, even

dub · July 7, 2009

Hell, even

you skipped the comment to your own post. just so you don't miss it again:

a lot of them are anti-jew? lets pretend that "AI admits bias when dealing with democracies vs more repressed societies". does that make them anti-jew?

how is the red cross anti-jew?

what about human rights watch? how are they anti-jew?

you seem to equate criticism of israel to being anti-jew. it seems that you're a little confused.

KrustyKidd · July 7, 2009

you skipped the comment to your own post. just so you don't miss it again:
a lot of them are anti-jew? lets pretend that "AI admits bias when dealing with democracies vs more repressed societies". does that make them anti-jew?

how is the red cross anti-jew?

what about human rights watch? how are they anti-jew?

you seem to equate criticism of israel to being anti-jew. it seems that you're a little confused.

For starters, you are a Jew hater and this is the well you continually return to to find fodder to justify the eradication of the 'cancer' you consider to be the nation of Israel.

A quick Google Came up with this among thousands of others

New York, NY, August 23, 2006 � The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today slammed the human rights group Amnesty International for its report on the Israeli-Hezbollah war, calling it "bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic."
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director called the Amnesty International report, "bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic." Currently in Israel visiting devastated areas in the north, Mr. Foxman said, "I see deliberate destruction of Israeli homes, hospitals, and other institutions."

He added that, "Amnesty International has a longstanding pattern of rushing to judgment to stigmatize Israel. They chose to ignore the fact that, after Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israeli soil, Israel did not deliberately strike civilian centers, while Hezbollah did, killing and maiming Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs and destroying their homes and businesses."

Mr. Foxman went on to say that, "One would have hoped that Amnesty International would have started with the victim, Israel, and conducted their study here first reporting on violations of international law and war crimes committed by Hezbollah. When it comes to Israel, Amnesty International has an anti-Israel bias."

The Red Cross discriminates against Jews by allowing Red Crescent but not the Star of David for Magen David Adom

You can rad about it here.

From its creation until 2006, Magen David Adom had been denied membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement since it has refused to replace its red Star of David emblem with a pre-approved symbol.
The official reason for the denial of membership was concerns about symbol proliferation; at the same 1929 conference which granted use of the Red Crescent and Red Lion and Sun, a limitation was placed on acceptance of any further emblems. The "Red Star of David" symbol was not submitted to the ICRC until 1931.

Critics of the ICRC assert discrimination since Turkey and Egypt were granted membership in 1929 while using the Islamic Red Crescent as their emblem, citing the same concerns about the cross.

M.Dancer · July 7, 2009

the title of the thread says 'committed by israel and hamas'.
i don't think anyone disputes the crimes committed by hamas (firing rockets into civilian territories), is there?

so what say you, dancer?

You don't dispute nor do you focus on Arab crimes. You are a one trick pony.

dub · July 7, 2009

You don't dispute nor do you focus on Arab crimes. You are a one trick pony.

we already know what hamas has done is wrong and illegal. why is there a need to focus on that?

i rather focus on issues and people who are apologists for selected war crimes.

at the end of it all, over 1000 palestinians (many of them civilians) were killed and 13 israelis. that is an understandable reason why there is a bigger focus on israel, don't you think?

dub · July 7, 2009

For starters, you are a Jew hater and this is the well you continually return to to find fodder to justify the eradication of the 'cancer' you consider to be the nation of Israel.

many jews dislike zionism as well.

i'm not against jews, i'm against the ideology and actions of zionism just like i am against the ideology of wahabism.

only uneducated and ignorant people would equate criticism of zionism or a country to racism.

A quick Google Came up with this among thousands of others

who cares what ADL and foxman say. they're an israeli lobby group.

The Red Cross discriminates against Jews by allowing Red Crescent but not the Star of David for Magen David Adom
You can rad about it here.

here is an example of you sharing misinformation, thus, making you a liar. you asked me to point out when you're lying and i am.

here is the full entry from wikipedia:

The official reason for the denial of membership was concerns about symbol proliferation; at the same 1929 conference which granted use of the Red Crescent and Red Lion and Sun, a limitation was placed on acceptance of any further emblems. The "Red Star of David" symbol was not submitted to the ICRC until 1931.
Similar concerns of India, Ceylon and the former Soviet Union regarding the use of non-Hindu and seemingly religious symbols were also dismissed by the ICRC, but their national bodies chose to adopt the Red Cross as their official emblems in order to gain entry. The Red Cross — the inverse of the Swiss flag, the country of origin of the founder of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement — is not intended as a religious symbol, but is often perceived as such.

Critics of the ICRC assert discrimination since Turkey and Egypt were granted membership in 1929 while using the Islamic Red Crescent as their emblem, citing the same concerns about the cross.

In her March 2000 letter to the International Herald Tribune, Dr. Bernadine Healy, then president of the American Red Cross, wrote: "The international committee's feared proliferation of symbols is a pitiful fig leaf, used for decades as the reason for excluding the Magen David Adom - the Shield (or Star) of David." In protest, the American Red Cross withheld millions in administrative funding to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) since May 2000.

Since the mid-1990s, there has also been extensive and growing co-operation between MDA and the ICRC including, among other things, a USD$2.2 million expenditure on strengthening ties between the two organisations, the signing in 2000 of a two year co-operation statement, the permanent placement of an ICRC co-operation officer in MDA headquarters, and extensive support of the MDA's blood bank activities. In addition, there are bilateral cooperation agreements between MDA and a number of national Red Cross societies.

On December 7, 2005, a diplomatic conference of states party to the Geneva Conventions adopted a third additional protocol, thereby introducing a new protective emblem, dubbed the "Red Crystal." This "third protocol emblem" is hailed as a truly universal emblem free of religious, ethnic, or political connotation. The new symbol is a red square frame tilted at a 45 degree angle. According to the rules of the third additional protocol, MDA can continue to use the Red Star of David as its sole emblem for indicative purposes within Israel. For indicative use in abroad missions, MDA can, depending on the specific situation in the host country, either incorporate the Red Star of David inside the Red Crystal or use the Red Crystal alone.

On June 22, 2006, MDA was recognised by the ICRC and admitted as a full member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies,[2] following adoption of the Red Crystal symbol in the statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on the same level as the Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols.

a discrepancy over the usage of a logo or symbol does not mean that the red cross is anti-jew and will create a fake report about israel's war crimes.

you're showing yet again what a typical lying, anti-semite screaming zionist who will do whatever it takes to divert criticism of israel's illegal actions.

M.Dancer · July 7, 2009

i rather focus on issues and people who are apologists for selected war crimes.

I think then you should debate with yourself...seeing that apologizing for the palestinians is what you do best

dub · July 7, 2009

I think then you should debate with yourself...seeing that apologizing for the palestinians is what you do best

eh?

i'm not disputing amnesty's report on war crimes by both israel and hamas.

do you dispute the report?

M.Dancer · July 7, 2009

eh?
i'm not disputing amnesty's report on war crimes by both israel and hamas.

do you dispute the report?

Well I think the veracity of the report is not above reproach, but that is not the question. The question is why you focus on israel alledged crimes while apologising, minimising and ignoring those of terrorists.

I think most here know the answer.