supporting gandhi vs supporting bush

[M.Dancer]

I don't think there is any difference at all. Especially when the diplomatic answer to having "accidentally" killed civilians is "So what?"

I would like you to point out specfic diplomatic answers that state "so what". If you are refering to arab diplomats, I concede your point.

[dub]

Never the less, its a war crime for combattants to be positioned in a civ iilan area ...but not a war crime to attack the position even if it is in a marketplace.

AI and HRW have concluded that israel has committed war crimes based on investigations by professionals who know what they're doing and talking about.

you have concluded that israel has not committed war crimes based on nothing but crap.

you fail again.

[M.Dancer]

AI and HRW have concluded that israel has committed war crimes based on investigations by professionals who know what they're doing and talking about.

All they know is the more outrage they can fabricate the more donations they can get. It's pretty clear their definitions of war crimes would not stand in any court other than the court of ignorant opinion.

[M.Dancer]

AI and HRW have concluded that israel has committed war crimes based on investigations by professionals who know what they're doing and talking about.

So you are saying the those groups repudiate the geneva conventions?

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

The difference is one is legal and the other the figment of imagination.

Quite the opposite, it happens all the time. See my previous reference to flechette rounds and tanks. It is not unheard of for the to IDF shoot flechette rounds into crowded areas.

In any case, I have seareched and found that according to B'tselem that 9 civilians have been killed by them. Assuming that the targets are not civilians, that ain't bad.

At least nine. There may be more. Regardless, it is a type of indiscriminate firing, and it is done on purpose. This is only one example among the many, many atrocities committed by the IDF. Countless homes have been bulldozed with the residents still inside. Bombs have been dropped and missiles fired into civilian areas by no accident at all.

Oh how tedious....

Oh, those pesky facts, always getting in the way, aren't they? Where is a link to your source?

There have been numerous statements of regret from Israel. Never the less, it is not Israel who should apologise, they didn't put the civialns in danger.

Are you suggesting that the civilians who had their homes bulldozed or bombed just shouldn't have been living where they were, where Palestinians have been living for centuries?

[Malaclypse the Younger]

I would like you to point out specfic diplomatic answers that state "so what". If you are refering to arab diplomats, I concede your point.

I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual response is something more like "We will continue to marginalise and kill every last Palestinian if we feel like it." Not much less than that has recently been said by Benjamin Netanyahu, directly after talks with Barak Obama in which he said that Israel would work on peace, and quickly did the usual about face and started building more houses in contentious settlement areas.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[M.Dancer]

Oh, those pesky facts, always getting in the way, aren't they? Where is a link to your source?

My mistake, I assumed you had a functionig cortex.

The source are thge geneva conventions articles of war.

Specifcally article 28. Now seeing you are too lazy to read the articles for yourself, and instead assume they contain what you would like them to contain, i will link you to them in hopes that there will be none less person ignorant of them.

Now pay attention....

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e7...125641e004aa3c5

Look for...article.....28

Quite the opposite, it happens all the time. See my previous reference to flechette rounds and tanks. It is not unheard of for the to IDF shoot flechette rounds into crowded areas.

What happens all the time are people who don't know squat making wild ass statements based on their feelings rather than fact. Given you don't know anything about international law in this context, how is anyone supposed to take your word on the targetting orders of the IDF?

[M.Dancer]

I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual response is something more like "We will continue to marginalise and kill every last Palestinian if we feel like it."

Does it make you feel better to demonize them? Are they wering funny hats when you think about them thusly?

[M.Dancer]

At least nine. There may be more. Regardless, it is a type of indiscriminate firing, and it is done on purpose. This is only one example among the many, many atrocities committed by the IDF. Countless homes have been bulldozed with the residents still inside. Bombs have been dropped and missiles fired into civilian areas by no accident at all.

I am assuming you call a n atrocity anything that makes you sad. Like Mom says you can't stay up to watch CSI.."That's an atriocity Mom!"

Anyway, now that you have a sub par grasp of the rules of war you will conclude that bombs falling on houses is not an atrocity, even if it makes you sad.

Are you suggesting that the civilians who had their homes bulldozed or bombed just shouldn't have been living where they were, where Palestinians have been living for centuries?

Are you suggesting they should be immune form attack, regardless of what the terrorists are doing inside the houses? Remember article 28....

[d4dev]

I can't believe the sheer ignorance and bias among some posters here about Gandhi, and frankly, some comments about him are disturbing and disgusting. Some posters have gone to the extent of personally abusing Gandhi and indulging in character assassination.

Among the more ridiculous and prevalent themes of opposition to Gandhi's methods is that he "knowingly" and "willingly" sent his "followers" to be beaten, maimed and killed. Another poster claims that thousands of his followers died this way. I'd like to see sources on that if you don't mind. It's one thing to accuse the man regarding actual events, but quite another to indulge in character assassination based on fabricated lies. The latter doesn't diminish the greatness of Gandhi in any way, it just shows how you have been blinded by your bias against the man and how you seek to discredit him in any way you can.

Gandhi's "followers" were not dumb sheep that they could not think for themselves. They suffered the injustice and discrimination of the British administration every day and were quite aware of the atrocities the British were capable of. The Jallianwala Bag Massacre of 1919, in which thousands of innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood by a British firing squad, was proof of the inhumanity and monstrousness that the British would descend to, to maintain control of their Indian empire. The ban on any industrial activity, the encouragement of inter-religious tensions that eventually tore India apart, and the forced growth of cash crops by farmers that caused millions to die of famines and starvation was something that not only Gandhi, but everyone else experienced every day.

The movement for Indian self-rule started way before Gandhi became its leader, in the late 1800s. When Gandhi came on the scene in 1920, he was accepted as a national leader by a population that was angry at British persecution, and were willing to lay down their lives for the cause of India's freedom. In fact, there were several movements against British rule in India, ranging from communist revolutionaries to staunch nationalists and Gandhi's was the only large scale peaceful alternative available to common Indians who could participate without the fear of being executed for treason.

Gandhi's philosophy was simple-he would use peaceful protests to awaken the conscience of the British into seeing that what they were doing was wrong. He would endure great physical and personal hardships to make the oppressor realize that he must stop his oppression. In fact, he was such an extreme pacifist that he decided to suspend a highly successful national agitation in which tens of millions of satyagrahis took part because of one incident in which a protest turned violent and 20 policemen were killed.

Gandhi literally embraced and implemented the Hindu philosophies of non-violence and Jesus' teachings of turning the other cheek. Those who blame him for putting his followers' well-being at risk must also ask themselves if they have the same problems with Jesus' teachings and would gladly demean Him by referring to Him as a "fakir".

Any movement against an oppressor will inevitably involve suffering on the part of the resister-the question is not whether an oppressive regime can be ousted painlessly, but whether the resister can maintain his humanity and moral superiority in the face of great evil.

Edited August 9, 2009 by d4dev

[Malaclypse the Younger]

My mistake, I assumed you had a functionig cortex.

Ah, name calling. The last refuge of losers.

The source are thge geneva conventions articles of war.

Specifcally article 28. Now seeing you are too lazy to read the articles for yourself, and instead assume they contain what you would like them to contain, i will link you to them in hopes that there will be none less person ignorant of them.

No, I am not too lazy. You are making a claim, you back it up.

But now that we've got those horrible, pesky facts out of the way, maybe you'll feel a little more ready to discuss them.

What happens all the time are people who don't know squat making wild ass statements based on their feelings rather than fact.

Oh, do you do that frequently? Given some of the other race-based topics around here, I would assume so.

Given you don't know anything about international law in this context, how is anyone supposed to take your word on the targetting orders of the IDF?

What difference would it make? You've already agreed that the IDF uses flechette rounds, with lethal effect on civilians. Flechette rounds are a type of indescriminate ordnance, making it impossible to claim that the IDF does not fire without discretion. Regardless of what the Geneva convention says about militants hiding amongst civilians, there are much better ways of killing one person in a crowd than using wide-dispersal artillery. You would have to be incredibly dishonest to say anything to the contrary.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Does it make you feel better to demonize them? Are they wering funny hats when you think about them thusly?

Demonise whom? Benjamin Netanyahu has not said anything of lesser calibre of late. He spoke with Barack Obama about making peace and then promptly began more beligerant actions that anyone should know by now will provoke a violent response, which Israeli politicians will then use to justify killing more Palestinians. That is how this game has been played for quite a long time.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

I am assuming you call a n atrocity anything that makes you sad. Like Mom says you can't stay up to watch CSI.."That's an atriocity Mom!"

Your assumption is entirely incorrect. Try again.

Anyway, now that you have a sub par grasp of the rules of war you will conclude that bombs falling on houses is not an atrocity, even if it makes you sad.

I will continue to conclude that bombs falling on houses is an atrocity, even if it makes me sad. It's not the fact that it makes me sad that makes it an atrocity. It is the suffering of the individuals living in the house that got bombed that makes it an atrocity.

Are you suggesting they should be immune form attack, regardless of what the terrorists are doing inside the houses? Remember article 28....

I'm suggesting that there are better ways of dealing with these kinds of problems, which don't involve provoking violent reactions from people who are already known to react violently.

[M.Dancer]

I'm suggesting that there are better ways of dealing with these kinds of problems, which don't involve provoking violent reactions from people who are already known to react violently.

Given that there is no need to use force against those who do you no harm, killing those who attack you is much more calming than sharing your emotions with them.

Edited August 9, 2009 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

What difference would it make? You've already agreed that the IDF uses flechette rounds, with lethal effect on civilians. Flechette rounds are a type of indescriminate ordnance, making it impossible to claim that the IDF does not fire without discretion. Regardless of what the Geneva convention says about militants hiding amongst civilians, there are much better ways of killing one person in a crowd than using wide-dispersal artillery. You would have to be incredibly dishonest to say anything to the contrary.

Given there are very few deaths attributed to this weapon, I have to assume your claims bullshit. I would have to be incedibly stupid to agree with you.

BTW, all ordinace are indiscriminate...why does one make you sadder than another?

[M.Dancer]

It is the suffering of the individuals living in the house that got bombed that makes it an atrocity.

Suffering doesn't make something an atrocity....otherwise forcing myself to read this drek would be one as well.

[M.Dancer]

Ah, name calling. The last refuge of losers.

You asked me to show proof the earth was round. After doing so you asked again to provide a cite. I gave you verbatim including the exact article....anyone could google to find it, but because you are a lazy lackwit you decided to play silly buggers instead.

Don't be surprised if I call you on your stupidity.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Given that there is no need to use force against those who do you no harm, killing those who attack you is much more calming than sharing your emotions with them.

If you don't provoke people to attack you in the first place, there is no reason to kill them for attacking you.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Given there are very few deaths attributed to this weapon, I have to assume your claims bullshit. I would have to be incedibly stupid to agree with you.

Then I guess you are incredibly stupid, because you already did agree with me.

BTW, all ordinace are indiscriminate...why does one make you sadder than another?

Not all ordnance is indiscriminate. It is much easier to aim a rifle than it is to aim flechettes.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

You asked me to show proof the earth was round. After doing so you asked again to provide a cite. I gave you verbatim including the exact article....anyone could google to find it, but because you are a lazy lackwit you decided to play silly buggers instead.

I asked you to back yourself up with facts. If that's too much of a chore, perhaps you should leave intellectual debate to people who aren't as lazy as you.

[M.Dancer]

I asked you to back yourself up with facts. If that's too much of a chore, perhaps you should leave intellectual debate to people who aren't as lazy as you.

You should re read the exchange if that aint too much....

You asked for:

I'd like you to point out the specific parts of the Geneva Convention that says any of this.

To which I gave you the exact article of the Geneva conventions which you asked for.

Not content you wanted to play more silly buggers

Where is a link to your source?

It's the fucking geneva conventins!!!!

And yet I wait for an apology for asking me for proof the world is round...

[M.Dancer]

I asked you to back yourself up with facts. If that's too much of a chore, perhaps you should leave intellectual debate to people who aren't as lazy as you.

You mean too lazy to look up a specific article of the geneva conventions or too lazy to hit me head repeatedly with a hammer so I can have a debate on your level?

[M.Dancer]

Then I guess you are incredibly stupid, because you already did agree with me.

I agreed they are in the IDF arsenal. For you to infer anythi8ng else is dishonest and on par with your style.

[M.Dancer]

If you don't provoke people to attack you in the first place, there is no reason to kill them for attacking you.

Oh how facile. And moronic. Moronically facile.

I suppose then it's simply the jews fault. They made the arabs want to murder them.

[dub]

So you are saying the those groups repudiate the geneva conventions?

an interesting way to debate. just because you are posting an article from the geneva convention, it doesn't mean that the circumstances and israel's actions is legal.

the geneva convention was used by AI, HRW and the red cross when they made their conclusion and their conclusion was that israel violated international law.

so tell me when the Dancer fact finding mission was in gaza to investigate AI, HRW and the red cross reports where they've concluded that israel violated international law?