Zionism

[JellyDonut]

To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that  is strictly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign

What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?

Their rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place

[enwiabe]

To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that  is strictly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign

What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?

Their rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place

260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?

[Biceps]

To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that  is strictly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign

What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?

Their rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place

260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?

Wounded could mean minor injuries... Of those 260 im guessing only a handful are actually at risk of dying. Either way it is still significantly lower than the Palestinian casualties.

[Truck]

To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that  is strictly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign

What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?

Their rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place

Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.

http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/

Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.

[JellyDonut]

260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?

How many rockets were fired?

Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.

http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/

Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.

Firstly, even if Phalangists were the ones that conducted the raping and killing of civilians, it happened under IDF and Sharon's direct watch, with knowledge of it occurring. His resignation means nothing.

If they were serious in minimising casualties, aerial strikes would be an utter, last resort. You misinterpreted me before when I called for an exercise of discretion. Releasing pamphlets then bombing houses, while does in fact minimise casualties, does not reveal intent. I can admit that there has been actions, for whatever reason, to minimise casualties so making an absolute statement on the matter was silly on my part. However, one hand doesn't wash the other

Edit:
Fuck that was worded badly. I'm just saying that what I should have realised that the speculation on intent is useless in that most evidence presented are, in essence, unknowable claims. You can say that they release pamphlets to protect civilians. A counterargument, however, could be that its a form of forceful eviction and that perhaps bombing wouldn't even be needed in the first place.

[enwiabe]

260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?

How many rockets were fired?

Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.

http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/

Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.

Firstly, even if Phalangists were the ones that conducted the raping and killing of civilians, it happened under IDF and Sharon's direct watch, with knowledge of it occurring. His resignation means nothing.

If they were serious in minimising casualties, aerial strikes would be an utter, last resort. You misinterpreted me before when I called for an exercise of discretion. Releasing pamphlets then bombing houses, while does in fact minimise casualties, does not reveal intent. I can admit that there has been actions, for whatever reason, to minimise casualties so making an absolute statement on the matter was silly on my part. However, one hand doesn't wash the other

1,456 according to wiki.

[Truck]

260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?

How many rockets were fired?

Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.

http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/

Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.

Firstly, even if Phalangists were the ones that conducted the raping and killing of civilians, it happened under IDF and Sharon's direct watch, with knowledge of it occurring. His resignation means nothing.

If they were serious in minimising casualties, aerial strikes would be an utter, last resort. You misinterpreted me before when I called for an exercise of discretion. Releasing pamphlets then bombing houses, while does in fact minimise casualties, does not reveal intent. I can admit that there has been actions, for whatever reason, to minimise casualties so making an absolute statement on the matter was silly on my part. However, one hand doesn't wash the other

Edit:
Fuck that was worded badly. I'm just saying that what I should have realised that the speculation on intent is useless in that most evidence presented are, in essence, unknowable claims. You can say that they release pamphlets to protect civilians. A counterargument, however, could be that its a form of forceful eviction and that perhaps bombing wouldn't even be needed in the first place.

Sabra and Shatila were inexcusable cases of mismanagement by the IDF. That's why I'll never say that either side is perfect, that the IDF hasn't made mistakes... there was the Deir Yassin Massacre as well (perpetrated by the Irgun which was a paramilitary group pre-1948), which was also a huge mistake and negative publicity for Israel. What military hasn't made such terrible, tragic mistakes though? At least these have been recognized as such... I believe the USA is still considering their nuking of Hiroshima/Nagasaki to be a moral triumph. I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the IDF does not have an agenda to murder innocent civilians, whereas we can say with certainty that Hamas and their counterparts do not discriminate between military and civilian targets and similarly, are willing to sacrifice their own civilians for the purpose of positive media publicity.

[enwiabe]

Wounded could mean minor injuries... Of those 260 im guessing only a handful are actually at risk of dying. Either way it is still significantly lower than the Palestinian casualties.

Listen to the brainwashing that's just dripping off your words. You know -nothing- about the 260 wounded. Your FIRST assumption (without having -any- facts) is that "oh, most of them must be minor injuries". And the fact that "only a handful are actually at risk of dying" makes it okay.

Are you kidding me? Do you understand how you sound?

[Mech]

To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".

 

[enwiabe]

To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".

 

Take it in context with his second sentence... "either way it's still significantly lower than the palestinian casualties"

Did he impugn the severity of their wounds? Not even once, not even close. His bias is clear and, yes, very reprehensible.

[Mech]

To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".

 

Take it in context with his second sentence... "either way it's still significantly lower than the palestinian casualties"

Did he impugn the severity of their wounds? Not even once, not even close. His bias is clear and, yes, very reprehensible.

But, that second part is a statistical question (at least for me); you would have to verify that. Note that he uses the word "casualties" versus the word "wounded". Do they mean the same thing? Sure, it might seem in bad taste and perhaps callous, but I do not think it is as "dripping" with maladjustment as you lead it on to be. I think it is perfectly fair to impugn what constitutes "wounded" and what severity of injury it implies.

Well, that is my take. I am not trying to say the second claim is true, because I do not know, but I can see sort of why he is asking the question.

[enwiabe]

To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".

 

Take it in context with his second sentence... "either way it's still significantly lower than the palestinian casualties"

Did he impugn the severity of their wounds? Not even once, not even close. His bias is clear and, yes, very reprehensible.

But, that second part is a statistical question (at least for me); you would have to verify that. Note that he uses the word "casualties" versus the word "wounded". Do they mean the same thing? Sure, it might seem in bad taste and perhaps callous, but I do not think it is as "dripping" with maladjustment as you lead it on to be. I think it is perfectly fair to impugn what constitutes "wounded" and what severity of injury it implies.

Well, that is my take. I am not trying to say the second claim is true, because I do not know, but I can see sort of why he is asking the question.

You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...

Let me put to you how absurd the notion is... How much more or less should you care if 50 people had their arms blown off, with 210 having scrapes and bruises. Should you care exactly 50% less if 25 people have their arms blown off with 235 escaping with just scrapes and bruises?

[Mech]

You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...

I took it to be a fatality? Excuse me if they are used interchangeably or if casualty includes "wounded" or "injured". 

[enwiabe]

You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...

I took it to be a fatality? Excuse me if they are used interchangeably or if casualty includes "wounded" or "injured". 

How about you look it up, mate.

[Mech]

Let me put to you how absurd the notion is... How much more or less should you care if 50 people had their arms blown off, with 210 having scrapes and bruises. Should you care exactly 50% less if 25 people have their arms blown off with 235 escaping with just scrapes and bruises?

This is not really about how much I care. This was about, what I thought, was a question about whether "wounded" includes fatalities and a comparison between the two.

I think both sides are wrong. You seem to have a closer attachment to Israel, he to Palestine. You both think one another needs to recognise the plight of the other and no progress is being made. Much like the whole situation, really.

You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...

I took it to be a fatality? Excuse me if they are used interchangeably or if casualty includes "wounded" or "injured". 

How about you look it up, mate.

I did. My apologies. As I said, I was under the impression a casualty was a fatality.

Not trying to get anyone angry here.