Followup on Gaza fatalities

[untermensche]

That is what oppression creates.

It is why the oppression should end, so the Palestinians can create a normal modern state.

With all the same rights as every other state.

 

[laughing dog]

I seriously doubt you even bothered to read the report you cite. The report has two categories - membership and affiliation. Of the 150, 91 are "affiliated" with alleged terrorist organizations (I say alleged, because Fatah is included). I could find no operational definition of "affiliation". Since Hamas employs teachers, social workers, etc.... along with terrorists, the notion of undefined "affiliation" means that these numbers are, at best, upper estimates, that cannot be taken as accurate.

And, of course, killing people who are not posing an immediate threat is wrong, regardless of what one believes they may do in the future.

Grasping at straws again.

1) Even if you were right the highly selective targeting says a lot. It's very much not random based on a characteristic they can't see. Thus there must be some characteristic they can see that's related to it--their actions.

Logic Fail: if I am right, it is not highly selective targeting.

2) "Affiliated" doesn't have a formal definition AFIAK. The terrorist organizations are trying to keep the information under wraps but they're not that good at it. (Note that over time this number creeps up as often the terrorist organizations only post the martyrdom pages after the reporters have lost interest in the situation. Only those following it in detail and for the long term find them.)

If "affliated" has no operational definition, then it is a meaningless term. Which allows Zionists, their dupes, and bigots to include anyone who has ever worked or volunteered in non-combat or terrorist activists, or who may be related to someone to has some ties to those organizations ins some capacity to be counted as "affiliated".

[
3) If Israel doesn't defend the border fence they would be mobbed, large numbers of terrorists coming in behind a mass of civilians. And a member of an enemy army crossing your border certainly is a valid target.

I suppose you believe that the IDF can magically and accurately identify the terrorists in your imaginary mob in your imaginary scenario. As the faulty data in your own OP show, that belief is unsupported by the facts.

Just admit that the IDF has no real problem with Palestinian civilian casualties. In essence, you already have, since you claim the IDF is accurate with its shooting which means that it does mean to hit civilians. You can argue that is a reality of war, but that does not mean the blood of those civilians is not on the hands of the IDF nor does it absolve them of their culpability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason people in Gaza want weapons is because they are under a brutal oppression and have been for decades.

End the oppression Israel.

End the oppression.

It is dangerous but that is no excuse. You don't get to carry out decades of oppression and pay no price.

If the Palestinians would quit attacking the oppression would end.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Logic Fail: if I am right, it is not highly selective targeting.

If you're right it's still highly selective. A tiny % of the population is a member of the terrorist organizations. Looking only at the actual members we still have targeting far too accurate to be chance.

[
3) If Israel doesn't defend the border fence they would be mobbed, large numbers of terrorists coming in behind a mass of civilians. And a member of an enemy army crossing your border certainly is a valid target.

I suppose you believe that the IDF can magically and accurately identify the terrorists in your imaginary mob in your imaginary scenario. As the faulty data in your own OP show, that belief is unsupported by the facts.

Your doubletalk doesn't change the fact that they most clearly did identify them.

Just admit that the IDF has no real problem with Palestinian civilian casualties. In essence, you already have, since you claim the IDF is accurate with its shooting which means that it does mean to hit civilians. You can argue that is a reality of war, but that does not mean the blood of those civilians is not on the hands of the IDF nor does it absolve them of their culpability.

Just admit that all you're saying is bullshit.

 

[untermensche]

The reason people in Gaza want weapons is because they are under a brutal oppression and have been for decades.

End the oppression Israel.

End the oppression.

It is dangerous but that is no excuse. You don't get to carry out decades of oppression and pay no price.

If the Palestinians would quit attacking the oppression would end.

The sickness of oppression.

Once you do it for a while it is hard to stop since you have pissed off so many people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason people in Gaza want weapons is because they are under a brutal oppression and have been for decades.

End the oppression Israel.

End the oppression.

It is dangerous but that is no excuse. You don't get to carry out decades of oppression and pay no price.

If the Palestinians would quit attacking the oppression would end.

The sickness of oppression.

Once you do it for a while it is hard to stop since you have pissed off so many people.

Simply look to the past. Before the second intifada pretty much everything you're complaining about didn't exist. Yet they started the second intifada anyway--can't have the cannon fodder get a decent life.

 

[untermensche]

The sickness of oppression.

Once you do it for a while it is hard to stop since you have pissed off so many people.

Simply look to the past. Before the second intifada pretty much everything you're complaining about didn't exist. Yet they started the second intifada anyway--can't have the cannon fodder get a decent life.

I look at the entire history.

99.9% of the Palestinians totally non-violent.

But 99.9% means nothing.

It gets you nothing but more oppression.

 

[Arctish]

The sickness of oppression.

Once you do it for a while it is hard to stop since you have pissed off so many people.

Simply look to the past. Before the second intifada pretty much everything you're complaining about didn't exist. Yet they started the second intifada anyway--can't have the cannon fodder get a decent life.

Do you have any idea how long it took to build the barriers that sealed off Gaza? Do you have even the slightest idea of how much money, time, and manpower was devoted to that task, how much political capitol was spend by several different Prime Ministers, how much horse trading with Egypt and cries of "Anti-Semitism!" whenever someone criticized what Israel was clearly intending to do to the Gazans?

If you care about this subject at all, take your own advice and look to the past.

 

[angelo]

Opposing Israel and Israeli oppression does not make you a terrorist.

Violently opposing violent oppression is not terrorism.

It may not be justified but it is resistance not terrorism.

In your opinion 9/11, the London bombings, the multitude of Islamic terrorist attacks against all other religions and Western culture world wide are not what they appear, but simply poor little muzzies expressing themselves, right?

 

[angelo]

That is what oppression creates.

It is why the oppression should end, so the Palestinians can create a normal modern state.

With all the same rights as every other state.

They knocked back their own state time after time since even before Camp David during the Clinton administration, when the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands. The problem is not a " two state solution," two states living side by side. The problem is Islam itself and it's hatred of Jews ever since they rejected and refused to submit to their terrorist prophet 1400 years ago.

 

[untermensche]

That is what oppression creates.

It is why the oppression should end, so the Palestinians can create a normal modern state.

With all the same rights as every other state.

They knocked back their own state time after time since even before Camp David during the Clinton administration, when the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands. The problem is not a " two state solution," two states living side by side. The problem is Islam itself and it's hatred of Jews ever since they rejected and refused to submit to their terrorist prophet 1400 years ago.

Show me the map Israel wanted Arafat to agree to.

 

[Arctish]

That is what oppression creates.

It is why the oppression should end, so the Palestinians can create a normal modern state.

With all the same rights as every other state.

They knocked back their own state time after time since even before Camp David during the Clinton administration, when the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands.

I've asked this question before and iirc, you were the one I asked.

What were the demands that Israel was willing to meet? Was Israel going to agree to 90% of the entire list, or was it going to fulfill 90% of each demand?

Were the settlers going to be removed from 90% of the West Bank settlements, the PLO going to have control of 90% of the West Bank and Gaza borders, and 90% of the refugees going to be resettled in their former homes in Israel? Or were those demands not going to be met but 27 other demands would be?

I don't think Arafat's list at Camp David was all that long. His bargaining position was basically that Israel abide by the Oslo Accords or offer an equivalent peace agreement.

 

[laughing dog]

If you're right it's still highly selective...

If I am right, less than half were terrorists. You can define that "highly selective", but that does not change that your OP is based on questionable data and illogica.

Your doubletalk doesn't change the fact that they most clearly did identify them.

The only one doubletalking here is you. Your own OP source falsely assumes that anyone in Fatah or Hamas is a terrorist, and uses an undefined term "affiliated" to bolster the numbers. Moreover, all of that assumes that the victims were actually engaged in threatening behavior. Looking to the past, we know the IDF has killed Palestinians who were not engaging in threatening behavior.

Just admit that all you're saying is bullshit.

It is not bullshit to point out that "affliated" is undefined and that is likely to include people who are not terrorists. It is not bullshit to point out that not every member of Fatah or Hamas is a terrorist, since both organizations engage in many normal political and social activities.

It is a falsehood to claim otherwise. Which means your OP is source is promoting falsehoods, and that anyone duped or defending the OP source data is promoting falsehoods.

For some unfathomable reason, you appear incapable of understanding or accepting that the IDF is responsible for its actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The sickness of oppression.

Once you do it for a while it is hard to stop since you have pissed off so many people.

Simply look to the past. Before the second intifada pretty much everything you're complaining about didn't exist. Yet they started the second intifada anyway--can't have the cannon fodder get a decent life.

I look at the entire history.

99.9% of the Palestinians totally non-violent.

But 99.9% means nothing.

It gets you nothing but more oppression.

The people suffer for the actions of their leaders.

- - - Updated - - -

The sickness of oppression.

Once you do it for a while it is hard to stop since you have pissed off so many people.

Simply look to the past. Before the second intifada pretty much everything you're complaining about didn't exist. Yet they started the second intifada anyway--can't have the cannon fodder get a decent life.

Do you have any idea how long it took to build the barriers that sealed off Gaza? Do you have even the slightest idea of how much money, time, and manpower was devoted to that task, how much political capitol was spend by several different Prime Ministers, how much horse trading with Egypt and cries of "Anti-Semitism!" whenever someone criticized what Israel was clearly intending to do to the Gazans?

If you care about this subject at all, take your own advice and look to the past.

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. The wall was a response to the Second Intifada, not a cause of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is what oppression creates.

It is why the oppression should end, so the Palestinians can create a normal modern state.

With all the same rights as every other state.

They knocked back their own state time after time since even before Camp David during the Clinton administration, when the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands.

I've asked this question before and iirc, you were the one I asked.

What were the demands that Israel was willing to meet? Was Israel going to agree to 90% of the entire list, or was it going to fulfill 90% of each demand?

Were the settlers going to be removed from 90% of the West Bank settlements, the PLO going to have control of 90% of the West Bank and Gaza borders, and 90% of the refugees going to be resettled in their former homes in Israel? Or were those demands not going to be met but 27 other demands would be?

I don't think Arafat's list at Camp David was all that long. His bargaining position was basically that Israel abide by the Oslo Accords or offer an equivalent peace agreement.

The discussions were about borders, thus it was about land. The other issues were being left for a later date. Arafat couldn't accept the offer but he didn't want to reject it so they just ran out the clock.

And I note you bring up the "refugees". To allow the "refugees" into Israel is to cause the death of the Jews. Only a fool or a Holocaust supporter would think it is a good idea. The Palestinians and the Arabs know it's a total non-starter, that's why it's always a non-negotiable condition of any peace offer. That ensures Israel will reject the offer and the useful idiots (yeah, I know, the term normally applies to those unwittingly doing Moscow's bidding but it's just as applicable here) will blame Israel for not making peace.

 

[untermensche]

I look at the entire history.

99.9% of the Palestinians totally non-violent.

But 99.9% means nothing.

It gets you nothing but more oppression.

The people suffer for the actions of their leaders.

That is called reprisal.

It is a crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I am right, less than half were terrorists. You can define that "highly selective", but that does not change that your OP is based on questionable data and illogica.

Compared to what it would be by chance even half is beyond any sane probability.

The only one doubletalking here is you. Your own OP source falsely assumes that anyone in Fatah or Hamas is a terrorist, and uses an undefined term "affiliated" to bolster the numbers. Moreover, all of that assumes that the victims were actually engaged in threatening behavior. Looking to the past, we know the IDF has killed Palestinians who were not engaging in threatening behavior.

1) Terrorist organizations normally don't have non-combatants.

2) Even if they did, we still have the probability issue.

3) In war people get hit that weren't targets. However, we have no proof here of innocents dying. Not every attacker is a member of a terrorist organization.

Just admit that all you're saying is bullshit.

It is not bullshit to point out that "affliated" is undefined and that is likely to include people who are not terrorists. It is not bullshit to point out that not every member of Fatah or Hamas is a terrorist, since both organizations engage in many normal political and social activities.

It is a falsehood to claim otherwise. Which means your OP is source is promoting falsehoods, and that anyone duped or defending the OP source data is promoting falsehoods.

For some unfathomable reason, you appear incapable of understanding or accepting that the IDF is responsible for its actions.

For some unfathomable reason you appear incapable of understanding the difference between offense and defense.

Israel was sitting there well back from the border shooting at those trying to cross it.

 

[Arctish]

Simply look to the past. Before the second intifada pretty much everything you're complaining about didn't exist. Yet they started the second intifada anyway--can't have the cannon fodder get a decent life.

Do you have any idea how long it took to build the barriers that sealed off Gaza? Do you have even the slightest idea of how much money, time, and manpower was devoted to that task, how much political capitol was spend by several different Prime Ministers, how much horse trading with Egypt and cries of "Anti-Semitism!" whenever someone criticized what Israel was clearly intending to do to the Gazans?

If you care about this subject at all, take your own advice and look to the past.

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. The wall was a response to the Second Intifada, not a cause of it.

Construction of the wall predates the Second Intifada.

If you care about this subject at all, take your own advice and look to the past.

 

[Arctish]

I've asked this question before and iirc, you were the one I asked.

What were the demands that Israel was willing to meet? Was Israel going to agree to 90% of the entire list, or was it going to fulfill 90% of each demand?

Were the settlers going to be removed from 90% of the West Bank settlements, the PLO going to have control of 90% of the West Bank and Gaza borders, and 90% of the refugees going to be resettled in their former homes in Israel? Or were those demands not going to be met but 27 other demands would be?

I don't think Arafat's list at Camp David was all that long. His bargaining position was basically that Israel abide by the Oslo Accords or offer an equivalent peace agreement.

The discussions were about borders, thus it was about land. The other issues were being left for a later date. Arafat couldn't accept the offer but he didn't want to reject it so they just ran out the clock.

And I note you bring up the "refugees". To allow the "refugees" into Israel is to cause the death of the Jews. Only a fool or a Holocaust supporter would think it is a good idea. The Palestinians and the Arabs know it's a total non-starter, that's why it's always a non-negotiable condition of any peace offer. That ensures Israel will reject the offer and the useful idiots (yeah, I know, the term normally applies to those unwittingly doing Moscow's bidding but it's just as applicable here) will blame Israel for not making peace.

You didn't answer my question. In fact, it looks like you are trying to drag the conversation away from it as fast as you can.

angelo said the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands. I would like to know where that 90% figure comes from.

What list of Arafat's demands is he referring to? How many demands were there? If there were more than 10, he should be able to point to a demand that Israel was prepared to meet. Or he should be able to explain how Israel was going to fulfill each demand by 90%, like removing 90% of the settlers or withdrawing 90% of Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories.

 

[laughing dog]

Compared to what it would be by chance even half is beyond any sane probability.

No sane person is talking about firing at people by chance, so your response is silly. Saying the IDF are good shots because about half of their hits were terrorists is pretty much inane propaganda.

1) Terrorist organizations normally don't have non-combatants.

Fatah is not a terrorist organization. Hamas has many arms,one of which is terrorism.

2) Even if they did, we still have the probability issue.

You are the one with probability issue, not "we". You are the one making claims of fact on lousy data.

3) In war people get hit that weren't targets. However, we have no proof here of innocents dying. Not every attacker is a member of a terrorist organization.

Using the presumption of "guilty" (i.e. terrorist) shows your disgusting bias.

For some unfathomable reason you appear incapable of understanding the difference between offense and defense.

Israel was sitting there well back from the border shooting at those trying to cross it.

The IDF is responsible for its actions. Nothing in that response addressed that issue.