Gaza "beach" -- what really happened

[arkirk]

Prejudice nothing. These are facts that those with left and Islamic apologists leaning refuse to accept.

The tone of your thinking is about on the same level as that kid in South Carolina. I do not apologize for Islam. You are easily as nutty as many of the Muslims I have run into. I just refuse to let that nuttiness motivate me to murder my nutty fellow men.

 

[angelo]

Oh, yes it is.

Rather, they know the best way to protect their citizens is to stomp on Hamas when Hamas picks a fight.

By killing children? Do you realize with every post, you make the IDF look more barbaric and inhumane?

You seem to have quite a problem with understanding whose fault it is. The kids die because Hamas uses human shield tactics. Hamas is the one killing the children.

The IDF is killing the children whether they are human shields or not. Hamas may be putting the children in danger, but the IDF is pulling the proverbial trigger. For some reason, you are appear incapable of seeing the obvious: the IDF is responsible for its decisions and actions which makes it partially responsible for the deaths of those children.

If I told you a million times not to stand in the middle of the highway as there's a strong chance you'll get run over by a car, and you after all the warnings stand in the middle of the road and you get hit!
Is the car driver to blame?

 

[Togo]

You seem to have quite a problem with understanding whose fault it is. The kids die because Hamas uses human shield tactics. Hamas is the one killing the children.

Just to remind you, we're dealing with a case where there were, in fact, no actual militants involved. Israel killed the children simply because it objected to them being in that part of Gaza.

 

[laughing dog]

If I told you a million times not to stand in the middle of the highway as there's a strong chance you'll get run over by a car, and you after all the warnings stand in the middle of the road and you get hit!
Is the car driver to blame?

The driver is partially responsible unless you are going to claim the driver was under the control of some alien life force.

 

[Axulus]

You seem to have quite a problem with understanding whose fault it is. The kids die because Hamas uses human shield tactics. Hamas is the one killing the children.

Just to remind you, we're dealing with a case where there were, in fact, no actual militants involved. Israel killed the children simply because it objected to them being in that part of Gaza.

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

 

[untermensche]

Just to remind you, we're dealing with a case where there were, in fact, no actual militants involved. Israel killed the children simply because it objected to them being in that part of Gaza.

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

They were children, so what is clear is that the Israeli troops didn't care much who they were killing.

Kind of like that leaked video of American troops shooting up a couple of reporters and their escort and then a guy and his children who stopped to help.

They didn't know who they were killing and didn't care.

But they sure as hell wanted to kill somebody mighty bad.

 

[arkirk]

Just to remind you, we're dealing with a case where there were, in fact, no actual militants involved. Israel killed the children simply because it objected to them being in that part of Gaza.

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

They obviously didn't care who they might be killing or they wouldn't have killed them. Hamas did not place those children there. You and Loren should wake up to the fact that this problem requires another solution. Israel has been bombing and invading and squeezing these people well past any recognizable breaking point. Israel is a peculiar situation in that it looks like both sides are lost causes...and it is only a matter of time till they both realize it. I think the answer has to be Secular government for Palestine...or more of this craziness.

 

[Axulus]

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

They were children, so what is clear is that the Israeli troops didn't care much who they were killing.

Kind of like that leaked video of American troops shooting up a couple of reporters and their escort and then a guy and his children who stopped to help.

They didn't know who they were killing and didn't care.

But they sure as hell wanted to kill somebody mighty bad.

What evidence do you have that they didn't care? Are you one of those religionists who believe in absolute certainty and that people can have it?

Would you use the same argument when one soldier (the US, let's say), kills another US soldier as a result of friendly fire? Would you say that the one solider killed the other US solider because he wanted him to die and didn't care who he was? Or does your bizzare argument only apply to Israel due to your extreme hatred for that country?

- - - Updated - - -

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

They obviously didn't care who they might be killing or they wouldn't have killed them. Hamas did not place those children there. You and Loren should wake up to the fact that this problem requires another solution. Israel has been bombing and invading and squeezing these people well past any recognizable breaking point. Israel is a peculiar situation in that it looks like both sides are lost causes...and it is only a matter of time till they both realize it. I think the answer has to be Secular government for Palestine...or more of this craziness.

Another religionist who believes in 100% absolute certainty (as if it were possible for Israel to have 100% absolute certainty on who the targets are). Come back to the real world where your mythical 100% absolute certainty doesn't actually exist.

Would you go up to a soldier who mistakenly killed another soldier in a friendly fire incident that "you obviously didn't care who you might be killing or you wouldn't have killed them".

We see through your irrational double standards and your appeal to emotion, reminds me of fundy Christians.

 

[Axulus]

If I told you a million times not to stand in the middle of the highway as there's a strong chance you'll get run over by a car, and you after all the warnings stand in the middle of the road and you get hit!
Is the car driver to blame?

The driver is partially responsible unless you are going to claim the driver was under the control of some alien life force.

When one US soldier mistakenly kills another US soldier in a friendly fire incident, how responsible is the one who mistakenly did the killing?

Now, let's take it a step further: what if the US solider who was killed in the friendly fire incident took off his uniform and was moving around in an enemy controlled area where enemy fire was known to have occurred in the recent past?

With Israel, we have a case of individuals in an area where enemy fire was known to have occurred in the recent past and was thought to be an enemy stronghold. How responsible are they for bombing what they believed were aggressors but turned out not to be?

 

[Ford]

Are you one of those religionists who believe in absolute certainty and that people can have it?

Like people who believe that Israel is entitled to land because God gave it to them? That the borders of the state of Israel can expand with no consequences because the state of Israel is right to seize whatever land it needs to defend itself and/or build condos?

 

[Axulus]

Are you one of those religionists who believe in absolute certainty and that people can have it?

Like people who believe that Israel is entitled to land because God gave it to them? That the borders of the state of Israel can expand with no consequences because the state of Israel is right to seize whatever land it needs to defend itself and/or build condos?

What does that have to do with the beach incident?

- - - Updated - - -

The arguments I'm seeing is that because Israel didn't have 100% absolute certainty that the targets were enemy aggressors engaging in attacks against Israel, they didn't care who they were killing and didn't care if the targets were children.

I just want to see if people apply the same standards in friendly fire incidents.

 

[untermensche]

They were children, so what is clear is that the Israeli troops didn't care much who they were killing.

Kind of like that leaked video of American troops shooting up a couple of reporters and their escort and then a guy and his children who stopped to help.

They didn't know who they were killing and didn't care.

But they sure as hell wanted to kill somebody mighty bad.

What evidence do you have that they didn't care? Are you one of those religionists who believe in absolute certainty and that people can have it?

The evidence is, they were unarmed children.

When you deliberately shoot at unarmed children you obviously don't care much who you are killing.

And of course a high degree of certainty, not absolute, is what is needed before you shoot.

If you care.

 

[Axulus]

What evidence do you have that they didn't care? Are you one of those religionists who believe in absolute certainty and that people can have it?

The evidence is, they were unarmed children.

When you deliberately shoot at unarmed children you obviously don't care much who you are killing.

And of course a high degree of certainty, not absolute, is what is needed before you shoot.

If you care.

How high a degree of certainty is needed? Why? How high a degree of certainty did they have?

Same with friendly fire incidents. How high a degree of certainty is needed that you aren't shooting one of your own? Friendly fire incidents happen quite frequently. Is it your contention that the average soldier doesn't care about killing one of his own?

 

[untermensche]

The evidence is, they were unarmed children.

When you deliberately shoot at unarmed children you obviously don't care much who you are killing.

And of course a high degree of certainty, not absolute, is what is needed before you shoot.

If you care.

How high a degree of certainty is needed? Why? How high a degree of certainty did they have?

What could they possibly be certain of to the degree they thought they could shoot?

Could they have seen weapons? Did they take fire from the children?

What evidence do we have besides the word of Israel that any "caring" took place?

 

[Axulus]

How high a degree of certainty is needed? Why? How high a degree of certainty did they have?

What could they possibly be certain of to the degree they thought they could shoot?

Could they have seen weapons? Did they take fire from the children?

What evidence do we have besides the word of Israel that any "caring" took place?

I'm saying that you have an impossibly high standard for certainty and are quick to rush to judgment without knowing all the facts that were involved with the decision (none of us really do).

According to Israel, the area in question was a fenced off military compound, and the individuals that were targeted were inside the fenced area and went near a storage container containing military supplies which Israel believed meant that they were trying retrieve those supplies. This was a compound that was not known to have civilian activity and the fence indicates it was a restricted area.

Does this create a situation with a high enough level of certainty? I don't know, but you seem very smug and sure of yourself.

On the flip side, the presence of the fence does refute Loren's claim that Hamas wanted civilians there to use as human shields. If that were true, there wouldn't have been a fence built to keep civilians out.

 

[untermensche]

What could they possibly be certain of to the degree they thought they could shoot?

Could they have seen weapons? Did they take fire from the children?

What evidence do we have besides the word of Israel that any "caring" took place?

I'm saying that you have an impossibly high standard for certainty and are quick to rush to judgment without knowing all the facts that were involved with the decision (none of us really do).

It's not a high standard when one side is extremely better armed than the other and is under no existential threat, merely harassed.

You want to give Israel a free-fire zone.

Something you might see in a battle like Stalingrad.

 

[Axulus]

I'm saying that you have an impossibly high standard for certainty and are quick to rush to judgment without knowing all the facts that were involved with the decision (none of us really do).

It's not a high standard when one side is extremely better armed than the other and is under no existential threat, merely harassed.

You want to give Israel a free-fire zone.

Something you might see in a battle like Stalingrad.

Fenced military compound ≠ free fire zone. Not sure how you keep jumping to such bizarre conclusions.

 

[untermensche]

It's not a high standard when one side is extremely better armed than the other and is under no existential threat, merely harassed.

You want to give Israel a free-fire zone.

Something you might see in a battle like Stalingrad.

Fenced military compound ≠ free fire zone. Not sure how you keep jumping to such bizarre conclusions.

Shooting unarmed children = behavior of somebody who thinks they have a free-fire zone.

 

[Axulus]

Fenced military compound ≠ free fire zone. Not sure how you keep jumping to such bizarre conclusions.

Shooting unarmed children = behavior of somebody who thinks they have a free-fire zone.

Bombing targets in a fenced military compound that appear to be retrieving supplies from a shed within the compound ≠ behavior of somebody who thinks they have a free-fire zone.

Once again, you seem to demand an impossibly high standard of certainty. Why is it that friendly fire incidents in the battlefield are not uncommon? Is it your notion that the average soldier doesn't care about killing his own soldiers, and that he just sprays bullets at every target he encounters? Or is it rather that there is a level of uncertainty that is always present, a fact of the world we live in, and that demanding near absolute certainty is not realistic nor possible?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to have quite a problem with understanding whose fault it is. The kids die because Hamas uses human shield tactics. Hamas is the one killing the children.

Just to remind you, we're dealing with a case where there were, in fact, no actual militants involved. Israel killed the children simply because it objected to them being in that part of Gaza.

No militants? The point that your side is ignoring is that it was a Hamas military facility where normally only Hamas went. Simple mistaken identity.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

They were children, so what is clear is that the Israeli troops didn't care much who they were killing.

Kind of like that leaked video of American troops shooting up a couple of reporters and their escort and then a guy and his children who stopped to help.

They didn't know who they were killing and didn't care.

But they sure as hell wanted to kill somebody mighty bad.

What you seem to be missing is the quality of the images. The IDF simply saw moving figures, not enough detail to know they were kids.