Israeli Attacks Gaza Strip, Killing 200+

Philbert

Banned
Strange...the mother's of those dead Palestinian children don't look too happy to me. In fact, they look very upset.

I guess they just don't understand Islam as well as you think you do.

You understand precious little, and it shows.
Those mothers are aware of the cameras aimed in their direction, and whether they are griefstricken or not they will act as devastated as possible for the cameras.
There are so many staged dead children scenes, one was recently shown on CNN, until some research was done by suspicious viewers; when the fake, staged scene was exposed as such, CNN removed the vid from it's site and made no more mention of it.
But you probably believed that photo of the Baby Milk factory in Baghdad.
:rofl:
 
You understand precious little, and it shows.
Those mothers are aware of the cameras aimed in their direction, and whether they are griefstricken or not they will act as devastated as possible for the cameras.
There are so many staged dead children scenes, one was recently shown on CNN, until some research was done by suspicious viewers; when the fake, staged scene was exposed as such, CNN removed the vid from it's site and made no more mention of it.
But you probably believed that photo of the Baby Milk factory in Baghdad.
:rofl:

I knew this would be your reply; the 'fake mother's grief' line.


Philbert? You are so ignorant that you have to resort to bigotry to justify the distortions in reality that your lack of knowledge provides you with.

No offense intended, just an observation.
 
Re: Actually ...

Actually, they would probably just find somewhere else and fight for the right to establish a nation there. The question would then be where?

Once again, more speculation with no concrete proof to prove the thought. Or as I see it, fanning the flames of hatred.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
1) From all the deaths, a handful are Hamas from the 600, explain that? Shitty aim? Or clueless as what Israel is doing? Terror is it's own way.

5) You proved my point. That's the same view the Palestinians have about there land being taken by Israel.

1) Once a terrorist group always a terrorist group :yesyes: and the group must be eradicated with all its supporters and members no matter what are the costs.
5) You dare to compare Texans to Palestinians, seriously how serious and realistic can you be :rolleyes: :dunno::wtf:? Texans are educated and clever people. They are not governed by a group of dictators unlike Palestinians. Making senseless comparisons doesn't give you more credit. And you avatar reflects who you really are.
 
The discussion is slumping in this thread again.

Look at us discussing the Palestino-Israelian conflict, us that are not Palestinian neither Israelian, look at us and tell me there is a possible solution for them...

By the way, Israel refuse to acknowledge UN authority after being demanded to stop the bombings. They, in regards of the UN conventions, outlawed themselves - it's supposed to deserve the rogue state status that Isreal, obviously, won't have.

Note that Hamas also refused to stop fighting as the UN was not acknowledging their demands. They also, in regards of the UN conventions, outlawed themselves...

Those saying that Israel wants peace are wrong. Both sides want this war, each one to serve their agenda.

I'm still blaming everyone in that conflict. Including the UN which isnt enforcing his resolution and applying its own laws. Regardless who is pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, they are both wrong and both guilty of the whole mess and both sides are just plain wrong. Unless you support blindly a side or another, of course.
 
Al Jeezra is not exactly a reliable, un biased news source.


I'm willing to bet $100 you haven't willingly watched their newscasts or even have read their articles.
Americans have this negative perception of them that's pretty unfair. And the links im posting are Washington based. Now even David Frost works for them......(and many other well known people)
And as far as it being reliable, are you serious? It is world renowned and respected. They are one of the three largest 24 hour news channels, the other being the BBC world and CNN. Give me a reason why they are not.

Read the articles and watch it, that have been very fair in how they are covering the recent outburst. They have been giving Israelis plenty of air time. Like the other day they interviewed an Israeli journalist, and a week or so ago they had a Israeli expert and a Palestinian expert both give their points of view...etc.

Just read what it says, they are providing the facts with very little spin (unlike American news media). And a lot of the same things have been reported by the bbc as well. The difference with them and US media, is there is a lot of stuff US media just doesn't show or tell you. And I haven't seen ABC, CNN, CBS, and FOX. show this conflict in a unbiased manner. They haven't even shown the Palestinians in fair light.
 
Its interesting, believe it or not, but last night i ran into a old friend (who is half Jewish) at a party. And this came up. I was surprised what he said. He said how he questioning how they are determining who are the militants among the crowd in dense Gaza. He also said he hasn't like how the American media is covering it, and he said the reason is because its about "have and Have-nots".

It was an interesting conversation, he brought up the blockade and he said that it makes it more easy for THEM to hate Israel.....

anyways...

Death toll in Gaza exceeds 850
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911084430400848.html

Hamas: Gaza war an end to peace bid
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009110213118818.html

Israel 'using white phosphorus'
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009110181945232797.html


Gaza hit by new Israeli strikes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7822623.stm

Israel Warns Of Escalation In Gaza Fighting
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99211836&ft=1&f=1001


Israelis, Hamas clash near Gaza City, witnesses say

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.gaza/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
 
I'm willing to bet $100 you haven't willingly watched their newscasts or even have read their articles.
Americans have this negative perception of them that's pretty unfair. And the links im posting are Washington based. Now even David Frost works for them......(and many other well known people)
And as far as it being reliable, are you serious? It is world renowned and respected. They are one of the three largest 24 hour news channels, the other being the BBC world and CNN. Give me a reason why they are not.

Read the articles and watch it, that have been very fair in how they are covering the recent outburst. They have been giving Israelis plenty of air time. Like the other day they interviewed an Israeli journalist, and a week or so ago they had a Israeli expert and a Palestinian expert both give their points of view...etc.

Just read what it says, they are providing the facts with very little spin (unlike American news media). And a lot of the same things have been reported by the bbc (and other news stations as well) as well. The difference with them and US media, is there is a lot of stuff US media just doesn't show or tell you. And I haven't seen ABC, CNN, CBS, and FOX. show this conflict in a unbiased manner. They haven't even shown the Palestinians in fair light.
....and to continue..

Sometimes its about getting a different perspective on things, With news stations like ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox...
Read the comments on the website, there are ALWAYS people from Israel commenting, and i have not seen any "this is bias" type comments. I actually haven't seen any whatsoever.

People also often call things that they dont hear about (again this doesnt even apply, considering most of this was reported by BBc and some american stations)..as bias and unreliable...Just a pretty weak accusation..

And there are some people who have a distorted view, that EVERYTHING besides FOX is bias and unreliable....
 

Philbert

Banned
From Little Green Footballs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._in_a_Gaza_Hospital_-_Update-_CNN_Yanks_Video

A Staged Scene in a Gaza Hospital? - Update: CNN Yanks Video
Middle East | Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:46:05 am PST

Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, a radical Marxist who openly supports Hamas and the 9/11 hijackers, is seen once again in this CNN video about the death of a “freelance cameraman’s” brother in Gaza — and the footage in the hospital room was very likely staged for propaganda effect.


A closer view of the scene in the hospital room is here at CNN: Toll of conflict strikes home as cameraman finds brother dead - CNN.com.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9pRu-sRPb0
LGF reader “Last Mohican,” a doctor, makes a strong case that this is an obvious fake.

I’m no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child’s sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can’t make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there’s no point in doing chest compressions if you’re not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can’t tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the “resuscitation scene” at the beginning is fake, and it’s a pretty lame fake at that.

So the question is, were they re-enacting the resuscitation scene by repeating their actions on a corpse, because the child had died earlier? It’s likely that the answer is no, that child is still alive, and is just an actor pretending to be a child who was killed. Why do I say that? Because the big guy in the white coat, if he’s really a doctor, nurse, nurse’s aid, EMT, or any sort of health care provider at all would be entirely aware that tickling the boy’s sternum doesn’t really look like actual chest compressions. If the boy was dead, the man would have done a more convincing job in compressing the chest. The taps on the chest that he’s doing are the sort of thing you see in bad TV dramas, when you don’t want to make the poor actor playing the victim uncomfortable by really pushing on his chest. I think the man in the white coat knows this child is actually alive, and is making the simulated chest compressions gentle so as not to hurt the child. My guess is that he assumed the videographer, like those on better TV shows, would have been smart enough not to film as far down as the man’s hands on the chest.

UPDATE at 1/8/09 12:43:55 pm:

Well, well. CNN has removed the video from the page linked above, with no explanation or retraction.

And meanwhile, LGF reader “Killgore Trout” has discovered that the “freelance photographer,” Ashraf Mashharawi, also runs a business in Gaza called Nepras For Media & IT, which hosts websites. And according to Internet Haganah, in 2004 they were listed as the operator of at least two websites for ... Hamas.

I know you’re as shocked as I am.

UPDATE at 1/8/09 1:09:14 pm:

Here’s another version of the suspect footage at the UK’s Channel 4. (Whose coverage is horrifically biased against Israel.)

The scene in question starts at about 1:40.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1184614595/bctid6336078001
 
Illumination?

Will somebody tell me why an invading army that is killing an 'enemy' (that has few if any guided weapons) at a ratio of over 50 to 1 needs to use white phosphorus in a city?
I hope this report isn't true.
Illumination is also a major reason why it is utilized, in addition to being better than smoke for cover. And there are yet others. Every military uses it.

Understand articles like these are posted to pry on ignorance. The overwhelming majority of people are utterly ignorant of what various materials are used for.

Depleted Uranium (DU) is yet another example. There are metals that are far worse for the environment that could be chosen for sabot rounds. In fact, many were used before DU.
 
Re: Illumination?

Illumination is also a major reason why it is utilized, in addition to being better than smoke for cover. And there are yet others. Every military uses it.
Every military uses it in open country, yes. But not in built up areas.
I believe the only recent time the US did was in Fallujah. And that was different. The US gave ample warning to the civilians to leave and they were able to leave the combat zone.
Gazan civilians are not able to leave the combat zone.

In my opinion, for an invading army with a massive military superiority to use white phosphoros in a densely populated area is going too far.

I just hope it's not true.
 
Re: Illumination?

Every military uses it in open country, yes. But not in built up areas.
Where do you get this non-sense? Illumination and obfuscation is an issue in urban areas!

I believe the only recent time the US did was in Fallujah. And that was different. The US gave ample warning to the civilians to leave and they were able to leave the combat zone. Gazan civilians are not able to leave the combat zone.
"Blah, blah, blah ... everybody, let me interpret war for you, and what is right, and what is wrong ... blah, blah, blah"

In my opinion, for an invading army with a massive military superiority to use white phosphoros in a densely populated area is going too far.
"Blah, blah, blah ... invaders ... massive military superiority ... blah, blah, blah"

I just hope it's not true.
I don't know what is true, except the general ignorance of the realities of combat to the common person -- especially from a comfy sofa or chair.

We can nitpick at things, try to single out things, etc... Reality? It's all political grandstanding and non-sense. DU is a great political game to play too. And if it wasn't DU, it would be something else that replaces it.

Same deal. It burns, hot. It burns, hot, to provide light, smoke, etc... Just like DU is a hard, heavy metal. These things are never good. But their entire design is no different than other materials and combinations for the same purpose.

Things that smoke and burn are harmful to flesh. Hard, heavy metals are bad for the water table, let alone if burned (yes, many hard, heavy metals burn, and produce nasty results).
 
Re: Illumination?

Where do you get this non-sense? Illumination and obfuscation is an issue in urban areas!
What nonsense?
That the last urban area the US used WP (white phosphoros) in was Fallujah? That's true. In fact, at first they denied it.
That most western militaries do not use WP in urban areas? That's true.
That WP is against the 'rules of war'? That's true. Under the U.N. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; a WP shell is classified as an incendiary device. And as such, is forbidden to be used against civilians or in civilian areas.

If you can prove any of this wrong I would be more then willing to adjust my position on this. I am always open to learning new things.
As I hope, you are also.
I don't know what is true, except the general ignorance of the realities of combat to the common person -- especially from a comfy sofa or chair.
How about for those that were in the military?
I was. Were you?
 
Re: Illumination?

What nonsense?
That the last urban area the US used WP (white phosphoros) in was Fallujah? That's true. In fact, at first they denied it.
They denied using WMDs and denied using it on civilians. It is used by illumination.

That most western militaries do not use WP in urban areas? That's true.
That WP is against the 'rules of war'? That's true. Under the U.N. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; a WP shell is classified as an incendiary device. And as such, is forbidden to be used against civilians or in civilian areas.
Sigh, this is beyond comprehension for yourself. Sorry, but true.

The UN can actually rule on things, set up entire study groups and committees -- I'll use DU as a prior example -- and actually make a full ruling, and people will ignore their rulings. Read up on DU, all the history, not just what some people said (but especially the "technical committees"). Same non-sense here.

The only reason this crap comes up is because some parts of the world have free press, namely the US. That US press, which has many sides, then gets filtered and then used 1-sidedly as some state-sponsored media sees fit.

The reality is that while Israel, the US and select other countries get chastized by their own media -- atrocities that are not even remotely comparable to the "nitpicking" are not reported until they've been going on for years. I'll take Israel, the US and only a select few, other nations, against the UK and, God help us, France any day, just in the last few decades.

Don't tack on weak link after weak link after weak link to fit an agenda. It's what people do with DU as well, largely prying upon the ignorance of others. Doesn't matter how many committees and rulings are made, people will still stretch weak links upon weak links to make things fit.

No, I didn't serve in the military, only as an engineer at several defense contractors. I guess that means my opinion doesn't count. I'm just "well read" and, by your own admission, "very knowledgeable," but that doesn't apply.

God I'm so stupid to even bother. Hell, 2/3rds of people are sick of hearing "President Elect" in another poll. Do people even bother to know their own history in their own country any more?

-- ProfV

P.S. BTW, the UN ruling has far more to do with the firebombing of Dresden, and related types of acts, than illumination and cover. If you want to harp on the UK and US for mass terror, let's start with Dresden which is nothing compared to what Israel is doing. It's non-sense, stretching of weak links to fit an agenda that causes people -- people who can actually do things (legally and politically) -- to not care what comes out of one's mouth. Because it's a stretch, a weak argument, and it really doesn't hold much weight at all.
 
Well, this thread is about Israel/Gaza. Not the US's use of Dupleted Uranium anti-tank shells. I'd respectfully suggest you start a different thread if that's what you want to go on about.

But that is, of course, entirely up to you.

:)
 
Re: Illumination?

They denied using WMDs and denied using it on civilians. It is used by illumination.
Did you even read my posts that you commented on? Where did I disagree with you about what they're used for? I know EXACTLY what they're used for; so PLEASE save us another of your lectures?

The UN can actually rule on things, set up entire study groups and committees -- I'll use DU as a prior example -- and actually make a full ruling, and people will ignore their rulings.
Well duh.
Where did I say that Israel legally could not use WP?

All I said was that the U.N. (and many other organizations) feel that using WP in civilian areas is something that modern militaries should not do.

And I am simply saying that I think it would be shameful and morally wrong for them to use Willy Pete (WP) in the Gaza IF it turns out they are.
 
I just realized I may have done an injustice to the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) by not explaining white phosphoros more clearly.

There are basically two kinds used by militaries. One is incredibly harmful and one far less so.

The former, WP incendiary shells; are designed to burn people and buildings.

The second, WP smoke shells, are for smoke screens and target illumination. They can be harmful, but very rarely seriously and not fatal.

My concern was that Israel was using the first version. But from what I have read of the reports; so far, there is no factual evidence that the harmful one had been used.

I still don't personally feel great about using even WP smoke shells in Gaza. But even if they had, this would not constitute the breech of war 'ethics' that I refered to earlier that the use of the incendiary ones would.
 
Top