Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'

dub · July 7, 2009

Well I think the veracity of the report is not above reproach, but that is not the question.

it is the question.

i don't disagree that hamas committed war crimes by firing rockets. the only reason i'm not talking about it is because no one disagrees that it was a crime.

The question is why you focus on israel alledged crimes

they're no longer "alleged". the reports from all the organizations have concluded that war crimes have been committed by israel. the focus happens due to a few reasons;

#1 - israel's war crimes, as reported, are more numerous and many times more ferocious

#2 - there are those who try to apologize, minimize and ignore israel's acts

#3 - no one disputes hamas' war crimes

while apologising, minimising and ignoring those of terrorists.
I think most here know the answer.

i have never apologized or minimized any illegal acts committed by hamas. if you have seen me do this, then by all means, show it. otherwise, stfu.

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2009

they're no longer "alleged". the reports from all the organizations have concluded that war crimes have been committed by israel. the focus happens due to a few reasons;
#1 - israel's war crimes, as reported, are more numerous and many times more ferocious

#2 - there are those who try to apologize, minimize and ignore israel's acts

#3 - no one disputes hamas' war crimes

So what's your point...the penalty is the same...nothing.

M.Dancer · July 7, 2009

it is the question.
i don't disagree that hamas committed war crimes by firing rockets. the only reason i'm not talking about it is because no one disagrees that it was a crime.

There have been plenty of posts here that disagree they are war crimes or they say that the acts of terrorism are understandable or that the rockets are puny attacks.

You don't talk about those posts cause you agree with them and are firmly in the "I support acts of terrorism" camp

M.Dancer · July 7, 2009

they're no longer "alleged". the reports from all the organizations have concluded that war crimes have been committed by israel. the focus happens due to a few reasons;

I'm sorry, I thought you knew what the word alledged meant. Obvioulsy not.

M.Dancer · July 8, 2009

i have never apologized or minimized any illegal acts committed by hamas. if you have seen me do this, then by all means, show it. otherwise, stfu.

Easy enough

says your opinion.
rules of war say something else. deal with it.

ps - majority of people killed were civilians with over 300 of them children. get your facts straight otherwise you end up looking like DoP.

Responding to a post explaining that rocket attacks launched from civilian areas...that in itself is a war crime.

israel's extremism did not come about in the past decade. the illegal settlements and the refusal by israel to follow international law (1967 border) has helped fan extremism just like suicide attacks and rockets launched into israel.

Apologising for Terrorists

that statement is simply wrong. anyone who has followed and studied this conflict, knows that hamas had not fired any rockets until israel attacked and killed 8 of their members. why aren't we talking about the truth and instead, why are we tippy toeing around the truth and sharing misinformation, exaggerations and lies? one way to resolve a conflict is to be honest about what is really happening instead of spinning the issue. do you agree or disagree with this?

Apologising for terrorism

where would you suggest that the hamas fighters should go and hide?
the hamas military wing is nothing more than a group of young men fighting the occupation and the treatment of the occupier. i see them like the jewish militias in warsaw's ghettos during their resistance against the nazis. the jewish militias only had guns and homemade bombs while the nazis had state of the art guns, tanks and planes.

Apologising for war crimes committed by terrorists

haha @ "one rocket launched at innocents is a vile, disgusting terrorist act". that's kind of a funny thing to say for someone like you. everyone has seen how much you've cared about the casualties on the arab side done by the israeli military. do you notice your own double standards which is caused by your racist view of the situation?

minimising Acts of Terrorism

no. i have to disagree. you have to realize that this whole thing did not start with hamas' homemade rockets which has killed less than 5 civilians since the conflict escalated recently

Ditto

Pretty sad really....

Bonam · July 8, 2009

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

I find it hilarious that you dismiss ADL as a "lobby group" and yet take as gospel whatever HRW says.

dub · July 8, 2009

I'm sorry, I thought you knew what the word alledged meant. Obvioulsy not.

yes. this is why i corrected you. there is no doubt that israel committed war crimes. the reports concluded that israel committed war crimes.

so what is your reason for apologizing, minimizing and ignoring israel's acts?

dub · July 8, 2009

Easy enough
israel's extremism did not come about in the past decade. the illegal settlements and the refusal by israel to follow international law (1967 border) has helped fan extremism just like suicide attacks and rockets launched into israel.

Apologising for Terrorists

your conclusion is stupid. how is that apologizing for terrorists? i never said suicide attacks or rocket launches are okay. if you punch me and then i punch you in the face and break your nose and make you cry, i wouldn't be the only one who would be at fault. you'd be at fault as well.

that statement is simply wrong. anyone who has followed and studied this conflict, knows that hamas had not fired any rockets until israel attacked and killed 8 of their members. why aren't we talking about the truth and instead, why are we tippy toeing around the truth and sharing misinformation, exaggerations and lies? one way to resolve a conflict is to be honest about what is really happening instead of spinning the issue. do you agree or disagree with this?
Apologising for terrorism

i did not excuse their rocket attacks. i was simply correcting someone about who provoked the war. are you some kind of robot who doesn't comprehend simple meanings or are you just randomly picking out paragraphs and pretending that i'm apologizing terrorism.

where would you suggest that the hamas fighters should go and hide?
the hamas military wing is nothing more than a group of young men fighting the occupation and the treatment of the occupier. i see them like the jewish militias in warsaw's ghettos during their resistance against the nazis. the jewish militias only had guns and homemade bombs while the nazis had state of the art guns, tanks and planes.

Apologising for war crimes committed by terrorists

what's the problem? i don't disagree with hamas fighting the israeli army and whoever is occupying their land. however, i fully disagree with them launching rockets into israel at cities. so you're wrong again.

haha @ "one rocket launched at innocents is a vile, disgusting terrorist act". that's kind of a funny thing to say for someone like you. everyone has seen how much you've cared about the casualties on the arab side done by the israeli military. do you notice your own double standards which is caused by your racist view of the situation?
minimising Acts of Terrorism

no it's not. i am showing how he's a hypocrite for calling rocket attacks disgusting while condoning killing palestinians by bombs, rockets and guns. i never minimized any acts of terrorism. you're making shit up again.

Ditto
Pretty sad really....

ditto what? you've made a whole lot of shit up again and tried to present it as a debate?

so i'd like to know. what is your reason for apologizing, minimizing and ignoring israel's acts?

Edited July 8, 2009 by dub

dub · July 8, 2009

I find it hilarious that you dismiss ADL as a "lobby group" and yet take as gospel whatever HRW says.

not sure why you find it hilarious. maybe you don't have the knowledge. HRW and amnesty and red cross all adhere to international law in which all of our countries are a signatory to. ADL is a lobby group for the state of israel.

dub · July 8, 2009

they're no longer "alleged". the reports from all the organizations have concluded that war crimes have been committed by israel. the focus happens due to a few reasons;
#1 - israel's war crimes, as reported, are more numerous and many times more ferocious

#2 - there are those who try to apologize, minimize and ignore israel's acts

#3 - no one disputes hamas' war crimes

So what's your point...the penalty is the same...nothing.

see DoP, Bonam, dancer and the rest of you die-hards. bc2004 has no shame in admitting that he's okay with and supports a state who commits war crimes. he happens to be above you guys for being honest about himself.

KrustyKidd · July 8, 2009

not sure why you find it hilarious. maybe you don't have the knowledge. HRW and amnesty and red cross all adhere to international law in which all of our countries are a signatory to. ADL is a lobby group for the state of israel.

And the Red Cross likes all symbols except Jewish ones. Hey, cool down a bit Dub. Go find ten Jews and shoot six of them, statistically you will have done your share of taking out the cancer.

M.Dancer · July 8, 2009

yes. this is why i corrected you. there is no doubt that israel committed war crimes. the reports concluded that israel committed war crimes.
so what is your reason for apologizing, minimizing and ignoring israel's acts?

And you are still wrong. None of the reports are judicial bodies, they have no power to pronounce guilt or innocence. They alledge and it is up to others to determine truth, ideally with the accused being able to defend themselves against the charges.

I realize racially motivated quasi-fascists such as yourself prefer fiats and decrees over the court of justice, but that doesn't change the meaing of the word alledged. None of their charges have stood the test of law or the interpretation of law.

I dodn't minimize Israels acts, I applaud their courage and their moral fibre. If someday the break a GC, I will be saddened, but that day hasn't come.

M.Dancer · July 8, 2009

your conclusion is stupid. how is that apologizing for terrorists? i never said suicide attacks or rocket launches are okay. if you punch me and then i punch you in the face and break your nose and make you cry, i wouldn't be the only one who would be at fault. you'd be at fault as well.
i did not excuse their rocket attacks. i was simply correcting someone about who provoked the war. are you some kind of robot who doesn't comprehend simple meanings or are you just randomly picking out paragraphs and pretending that i'm apologizing terrorism.

what's the problem? i don't disagree with hamas fighting the israeli army and whoever is occupying their land. however, i fully disagree with them launching rockets into israel at cities. so you're wrong again.

no it's not. i am showing how he's a hypocrite for calling rocket attacks disgusting while condoning killing palestinians by bombs, rockets and guns. i never minimized any acts of terrorism. you're making shit up again.

ditto what? you've made a whole lot of shit up again and tried to present it as a debate?

so i'd like to know. what is your reason for apologizing, minimizing and ignoring israel's acts?

Your protestations of innocence are not needed .I filed a report it is plain you are a terrorist smypoathizer. You are guilty as charged. Just like HRW and the Red Cross, your crimes are in black and white.

JB Globe · July 8, 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.

I'm sorry people, but you can't do a big song and dance about "Hamas propaganda" if you're going to use IDF statistics to back up your argument. I'm not sure how you can trust the IDF to be truthful about stats considering their deception during the conflict about their various tactics, remember the whole: "We don't use white phosphorous . . . What footage of us using it on CNN? . . . Okay, okay, we use WP, but only in accordance with international law . . . What? International law says we can't use it in civilian areas? But it's special WP that only hurts evil people, so it's okay."

In a deeply polarized conflict you can't trust either side to be objective, especially when the stats they provide are not compiled in a TRANSPARENT MANNER, but using methods and raw data that remains secret because revealing it would be "a security risk" This goes for Israel-Palestine, Sri Lanka, or any other long-running conflict where emotions run high on the regular. When you must win at all costs, people on either side tend to stop caring about what's true, and start caring only about what makes their side look good.

Please find an objective source next time.

M.Dancer · July 8, 2009

. . . What? International law says we can't use it in civilian areas?

I'm sure they didn't say that cause there is no international law that forbids it's use in any theatre. Only that they must ensure that civialian casualties are to be minimized if possible. Same with any weapon from bullets to bombs

How many civilan deaths from WP?

Very few.

Why?

They used discretion according to International law.

End of story

JB Globe · July 8, 2009

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.

Don't worry, that wasn't cynical in the slightest.

There are practical reasons why AI spends their resources in the way they do.

They are more likely to spend money where their findings will influence change in political policy. North Korea could give a rat's ass about an AI report, because it's a police state that doesn't care about human rights, so doing a huge investigation there won't affect any change. So why spend the money? They don't have a limitless budget. It would be better spend investigating human rights in India where the findings of a report might cause a political firestorm and result in public pressure that changes policy and eventually the situation on the ground.

They will still investigate countries that have limited access to information and lots of censorship if they feel they can still get enough information to influence international policy and the issue at hand is severe. ie - Sudan & Darfur.

They also investigate "closed nations" in the context of proving or disproving allegations made by another government which was using those allegations as a pretext for their own policy (ie - war, sanctions, etc) AI did this with Saddam Hussein and found many of the allegations to be true, and Bush even quoted from their reports in his press conferences.

And that brings me to another point, lots of governments tend to quote AI reports that criticize their enemies but claim "propaganda" when AI uses the same methodology to compile a report on their own side. ie - "AI reports on Saddam were correct, but AI reports on the US occupation of Iraq are totally wrong"

AI still investigated Hamas and criticizes them in their report on the Gaza Conflict, but I really think your opinion of AI on this issue has more to do with how you view the conflict (good guy vs bad guy, rather than a deeply polarized conflict where both sides have committed abuses and violations of international law) rather than how AI conducts itself.

KrustyKidd · July 8, 2009

Don't worry, that wasn't cynical in the slightest.
There are practical reasons why AI spends their resources in the way they do.

Bullshit. You would get far more change by having a stable, peace seeking government in Palestine that actually had negotiating as a policy than by continually carping on and on about how Israel does this or that to those who wish to kill every last one of them.

AI still investigated Hamas and criticizes them in their report on the Gaza Conflict, but I really think your opinion of AI on this issue has more to do with how you view the conflict (good guy vs bad guy, rather than a deeply polarized conflict where both sides have committed abuses and violations of international law) rather than how AI conducts itself.

Hardly. Hamas = one paragraph. Israel gets the whole book.

dub · July 9, 2009

And you are still wrong. None of the reports are judicial bodies, they have no power to pronounce guilt or innocence. They alledge and it is up to others to determine truth, ideally with the accused being able to defend themselves against the charges.

they may not have power to give a sentence or charge the war criminals, but they have the power to pronounce war crimes. many of their reports are used by the international court. in fact, they were behind UNCHR and international criminal court.

israel, the 'accused', refuses to defend itself against all of these human rights organizations, including the one led by the UN, because israel knows it has broken international. why is it that israel never agrees to cooperate with these investigations much like mugabe in zimbabwe?

I realize racially motivated quasi-fascists such as yourself prefer fiats and decrees over the court of justice, but that doesn't change the meaing of the word alledged. None of their charges have stood the test of law or the interpretation of law.

amnesty, HRW and red cross have stood the test of law and the interpretation of law.

I dodn't minimize Israels acts, I applaud their courage and their moral fibre. If someday the break a GC, I will be saddened, but that day hasn't come.

lols.

you are a war crime apologist.

dub · July 9, 2009

Hardly. Hamas = one paragraph. Israel gets the whole book.

you're an idiot if you can't comprehend the difference between what hamas has done and what israel has done in the latest conflict.

M.Dancer · July 9, 2009

you're an idiot if you can't comprehend the difference between what hamas has done and what israel has done in the latest conflict.

Minimalizing and apologizing for terrorists.

Youre as phoney as HRW

M.Dancer · July 9, 2009

amnesty, HRW and red cross have stood the test of law and the interpretation of law.

Really?

When did they prosecute someone.....?

Good luck finding that....

M.Dancer · July 9, 2009

they may not have power to give a sentence or charge the war criminals, but they have the power to pronounce war crimes.

I have the same exact power. In fact, I diod a report that proved you are a terrorist sympathizer. You may even as a result be on the no fly list. Probably not..but I have the same power.

What they don't have is the power to be taken seriously.

dub · July 9, 2009

Really?
When did they prosecute someone.....?

Good luck finding that....

you're an idiot.

their job is not to prosecute.

amnesty international: "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."

international red cross: "protect human life and health, to ensure respect for the human being, and to prevent and alleviate human suffering, without any discrimination based on nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions."

HRW: "conduct research and advocacy on human rights."

why are you a war crime apologist?

M.Dancer · July 9, 2009

you're an idiot.
their job is not to prosecute.

amnesty international: "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."

Then they have not: