Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police

[laughing dog]

So in WWII we should not have bombed German cities, nor invaded. Both inherently would kill civilians.

Shift the goal posts much? None of this has anything to with the topic of whether or not criticizing Israel for killing civilians is anti-semitic.

I'm not shifting the goal posts at all. Rather, I'm pointing out the flaw in your position by looking at it in a different war.

No, you are shifting the goal posts.

If it's not proper to kill civilians in self defense then we were not allowed to bomb or attack Germany or the territories it occupied. If it is acceptable then why isn't it acceptable for Israel?

It is not acceptable to deliberately bomb civilians. We did it in Germany and in Japan. That did not make it right then nor does it make it right now. Sometimes people and countries have to do unacceptable things. But they should own up to them instead of making bullshit excuses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While it's true that Israel uses guided rounds when accuracy is paramount (assassinations, strikes on rocket manufacturing facilities, etc.), Operation Pillar of Defense featured widespread shelling. You can call that abnormal if you like, but it's what was happening in Gaza when Omar sent that tweet.

You're missing the fact that artillery can be guided these days.

Note, also, that "shelling" is also sometimes used to describe tank main gun fire. That's also very accurate.

The "attack" was on a ship carrying no aid, just martyrs.

False. But even if it was true, that's no excuse for Israel raiding it in international waters. In fact, it's even less of an excuse.

Other ships in the flotilla carried "aid" (most of which was basically trash), the ship with the combat did not. We just didn't hear about the other ships much because there were no martyrs on board and thus no combat.

Like I said, I think her life experiences far outweigh any other motive behind her tweeted reaction to what was happening in Gaza. And I think it informs her opinions of ICE, the detention centers, asylum seekers, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.

In other words, she pays more heed to her opinions than the facts. She shouldn't be in office.

That's not what I said. I said I believe her life experiences (which are facts, btw) inform her opinions. That's how it is for normal people. We use our experiences as a basis for evaluating current events.

I think learning nothing from experience and/or being unable to apply that knowledge is a heck of a lot more disqualifying for office than having an opinion based on experiences most people don't share.

But when one's experience doesn't match up with the facts because they have seen only a small portion of things an intelligent person realizes this and pays attention to the facts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not shifting the goal posts at all. Rather, I'm pointing out the flaw in your position by looking at it in a different war.

No, you are shifting the goal posts.

If it's not proper to kill civilians in self defense then we were not allowed to bomb or attack Germany or the territories it occupied. If it is acceptable then why isn't it acceptable for Israel?

It is not acceptable to deliberately bomb civilians. We did it in Germany and in Japan. That did not make it right then nor does it make it right now. Sometimes people and countries have to do unacceptable things. But they should own up to them instead of making bullshit excuses.

In other words, they are acceptable things when we do them, but not when Israel does.

What's the difference? Jews don't get the right of self defense?

 

[Arctish]

You're missing the fact that artillery can be guided these days.

Note, also, that "shelling" is also sometimes used to describe tank main gun fire. That's also very accurate.

And yet you called shelling indiscriminate.

Are you saying the killing of those boys playing soccer in a stadium on November 10th was deliberate? Because it looked deliberate, but you usually don't acknowledge things like that.

I haven't fully investigated this source but reputable outlets like The Hill, The New York Times, Reuters, etc. have carried his writings, so he's not just some random guy on the internet.

He wrote this in November 2012 about the fighting in Gaza:

Bibi’s template for the current assault on the Gaza Strip may well have been the events of September 1996, when 17 Israeli soldiers and 70 Palestinians were killed in the clashes that followed Israel’s festive opening of the Western Wall Tunnel in the heart of occupied East Jerusalem. It happened during Netanyahu’s previous term in office, and consists of three simple steps. 1. Launch an outrageous provocation guaranteed to elicit an armed response. 2. Use overwhelming firepower to kill Arabs and remind them who is boss. 3. Mobilise foreign parties to quickly restore calm on improved conditions.

This time round, on 8 November, a week before Ahmad Jabari was assassinated, Israeli soldiers shot dead 13-year-old Ahmad Abu Daqqa while he was playing football outside his house in Gaza. Palestinian militants retaliated with a bomb and then a missile fired at an armoured personnel carrier, wounding several Israeli soldiers. Israel responded by shelling first another football field and then a mourning tent, killing four civilian non-combatants and wounding dozens. Four Israelis were wounded by the inevitable Palestinian missile volleys that followed. Egypt’s General Intelligence Directorate, which typically brokers security agreements relating to the Gaza Strip, stepped up its efforts.

By 12 November, amid demands from Israel’s Home Front Defence minister, Avi Dichter, to ‘reformat’ the Gaza Strip and calls from the transport minister, Yisrael Katz, to cut off the supply of all goods and services to Gaza’s population of 1.5 million until they begged for air, the Egyptians had crafted a ceasefire proposal that was accepted by the Palestinians and – according to the Egyptians – Israel too. With responsibility not only for fighting Israel but also enforcing agreements with it, Jabari began implementing the ceasefire. Two days later he was blown up.

^This is what was going on when Omar made that tweet. Evil doings indeed.

The incidents in that article really happened in the order Rabbani reported them. I don't know if his claims regarding the reasons are true, but if he's right, they're unforgivable.

Seriously. Fuck Netanyahu and fuck the IDF sniper who shot a 13 year old boy in the stomach as he played soccer outside his home. If I believed in God I would pray he strike them both dead with a rancid pig trough.

False. But even if it was true, that's no excuse for Israel raiding it in international waters. In fact, it's even less of an excuse.

Other ships in the flotilla carried "aid" (most of which was basically trash), the ship with the combat did not. We just didn't hear about the other ships much because there were no martyrs on board and thus no combat.

Like I said, I think her life experiences far outweigh any other motive behind her tweeted reaction to what was happening in Gaza. And I think it informs her opinions of ICE, the detention centers, asylum seekers, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.

In other words, she pays more heed to her opinions than the facts. She shouldn't be in office.

That's not what I said. I said I believe her life experiences (which are facts, btw) inform her opinions. That's how it is for normal people. We use our experiences as a basis for evaluating current events.

I think learning nothing from experience and/or being unable to apply that knowledge is a heck of a lot more disqualifying for office than having an opinion based on experiences most people don't share.

But when one's experience doesn't match up with the facts because they have seen only a small portion of things an intelligent person realizes this and pays attention to the facts.

She was paying attention to the facts. She was probably paying more attention to what was happening in Gaza than you did. She's paying attention to facts now. And again, she's probably paying more attention to them than you are.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you are shifting the goal posts.
It is not acceptable to deliberately bomb civilians. We did it in Germany and in Japan. That did not make it right then nor does it make it right now. Sometimes people and countries have to do unacceptable things. But they should own up to them instead of making bullshit excuses.

In other words, they are acceptable things when we do them, but not when Israel does.

That is flatly contradicted by the actual words in bold and italicized that I wrote. So, either you did not read them, you did not comprehend them even though only one word had 3 syllables and the rest had two or one syllable, or you are intellectually dishonest.

What's the difference? Jews don't get the right of self defense?

Your attempt at painting my stance as anti-semitic is based on a blatantly false reading of my post.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is flatly contradicted by the actual words in bold and italicized that I wrote. So, either you did not read them, you did not comprehend them even though only one word had 3 syllables and the rest had two or one syllable, or you are intellectually dishonest.

What's the difference? Jews don't get the right of self defense?

Your attempt at painting my stance as anti-semitic is based on a blatantly false reading of my post.

I think the difference here is an acceptance of guilt that drives us to do better, vs an apathetic shrug that drives others to repeat the mistakes of the past with reckless abandon.

Or, progressivism vs conservatism.

When someone sits dead as a result of direct human action, that means there has been a failure. Perhaps the failure was not acting earlier, not paying attention as the situation devolved. Sometimes the failure was allowing factors into a situation that exacerbated it to violence. Sometimes the failure happened long ago when the deceased's parents taught them to hate, and nobody was there to show them why hate is wrong.

This is the difference.

 

[Toni]

She didn't mention a lot of things in her tweet. So what? Tweets used to be limited to 75 characters, so the tweets people sent out tended to be focused and pithy.

I remember there being a lot of sympathetic coverage of the rocket attack on Israel, of fearful Israeli children in tears and the grieving families of Israelis who were killed. There was almost nothing in the US news about the frightened and grieving families in Gaza. For whatever reason, the media in the US focused how Israelis were being affected. You had to go to international sources like the BBC to get reports on how Palestinians were faring. Perhaps that's what she meant by Israel having hypnotized the world. I don't know. But it seems pretty clear what she meant by 'evil doings', and given her history it seems pretty understandable why she'd call it that.

Then maybe she should attack Hamas for shooting rockets from civilian areas or storing explosives next to apartment buildings etc.
But no, not a single word even mildly critical of Hamas.


That flotilla was a scam. In reality, much more tonnage of goods than what could be carried in that bogus flotilla enters Gaza from Israel through the Kerem Shalom crossing every week.

Show

The Israelis weren't letting the Gazans starve, but they weren't letting the donated food into Gaza as it arrived, either.

BS. The only times Kerem Shalom gets closed is when there is a security issue, like when "peaceful protesters" from Gaza set fire to the terminal on their side.

During the blockade, Israel was diverting shipments of donated food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid and warehousing the stuff in Israel. An Israeli official was in charge of calculating how much food Israel would allow the Gazans to import on a weekly basis, He was quoted speaking about 'putting the Gazans on a diet'. If you don't know any of this, then you should look into it. But if you already know about this and are just pretending the whole thing is about a land crossing, that's disingenuous.

Indiscriminate firing of artillery rockets at cities is fine, according to this "former refugee" since the targets are Jews, right?

WTF are you talking about?

Get that knot out of your undies and pay attention to what she actually says. Clearly, you could learn something.

The difference between could and should and would is much greater than the beginning letters.

 

[J842P]

No, you are shifting the goal posts.
It is not acceptable to deliberately bomb civilians. We did it in Germany and in Japan. That did not make it right then nor does it make it right now. Sometimes people and countries have to do unacceptable things. But they should own up to them instead of making bullshit excuses.

In other words, they are acceptable things when we do them, but not when Israel does.

What's the difference? Jews don't get the right of self defense?

He stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians was unacceptable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet you called shelling indiscriminate.

Are you saying the killing of those boys playing soccer in a stadium on November 10th was deliberate? Because it looked deliberate, but you usually don't acknowledge things like that.

Lets look more carefully at that case. An anti-tank missile was fired from that location, a tank fired upon the source of the missile. (Nailing the launch site pronto is normal military practice as only the most sophisticated of such missiles are self-guiding. If you can nail the launcher fast enough the missile goes stupid and is likely to miss.) That means the soccer-players were very close to the launcher--why didn't they get the hell out of there when they saw someone setting up a missile? Note, also, that they were male in the 16-18 range--they very well might have been the missile crew, not soccer players.

I haven't fully investigated this source but reputable outlets like The Hill, The New York Times, Reuters, etc. have carried his writings, so he's not just some random guy on the internet.

Not very accurate:

https://honestreporting.com/tag/mouin-rabbani/

And it wasn't hard to find this. It's just you weren't looking for evidence of bias.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is flatly contradicted by the actual words in bold and italicized that I wrote. So, either you did not read them, you did not comprehend them even though only one word had 3 syllables and the rest had two or one syllable, or you are intellectually dishonest.

What's the difference? Jews don't get the right of self defense?

Your attempt at painting my stance as anti-semitic is based on a blatantly false reading of my post.

Once again you are avoiding addressing the actual point. What's the difference???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, you are shifting the goal posts.
It is not acceptable to deliberately bomb civilians. We did it in Germany and in Japan. That did not make it right then nor does it make it right now. Sometimes people and countries have to do unacceptable things. But they should own up to them instead of making bullshit excuses.

In other words, they are acceptable things when we do them, but not when Israel does.

What's the difference? Jews don't get the right of self defense?

He stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians was unacceptable.

There is a lot of deliberate distortion going on here.

An attack on only civilians is wrong and a war crime. Attacking a military target when you know it will cause civilian casualties is an unfortunate consequence of war but is not considered wrongful unless the civilian casualties are out of line compared to the military benefit gained.

Note that mistakes do not count--if you believe you are aiming at something military but miss or are mistaken about your target it's not a war crime.

 

[Jarhyn]

He stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians was unacceptable.

There is a lot of deliberate distortion going on here.

An attack on only civilians is wrong and a war crime. Attacking a military target when you know it will cause civilian casualties is an unfortunate consequence of war but is not considered wrongful unless the civilian casualties are out of line compared to the military benefit gained.

Note that mistakes do not count--if you believe you are aiming at something military but miss or are mistaken about your target it's not a war crime.

Depends on who is doing the consideration. I definitely DO consider it wrongful. The question is, is it more, or less wrong than doing nothing? It must still be mourned, and responsibility must be taken, even if there was an objective that was necessary. Part of the "cost of doing business" is Acknowledging that there was a cost and trying to make amends.

 

[Arctish]

And yet you called shelling indiscriminate.

Are you saying the killing of those boys playing soccer in a stadium on November 10th was deliberate? Because it looked deliberate, but you usually don't acknowledge things like that.

Lets look more carefully at that case. An anti-tank missile was fired from that location, a tank fired upon the source of the missile. (Nailing the launch site pronto is normal military practice as only the most sophisticated of such missiles are self-guiding. If you can nail the launcher fast enough the missile goes stupid and is likely to miss.) That means the soccer-players were very close to the launcher--why didn't they get the hell out of there when they saw someone setting up a missile? Note, also, that they were male in the 16-18 range--they very well might have been the missile crew, not soccer players.

I haven't fully investigated this source but reputable outlets like The Hill, The New York Times, Reuters, etc. have carried his writings, so he's not just some random guy on the internet.

Not very accurate:

https://honestreporting.com/tag/mouin-rabbani/

And it wasn't hard to find this. It's just you weren't looking for evidence of bias.

I said I hadn't fully investigated that source. Whatever led you to conclude that actually I had, but wasn't looking for evidence of bias?

And that source you linked to didn't actually present evidence that Rabbani is biased in his reporting. It showed him criticizing a proposed change in the death penalty in Israeli military law that would make it easier to impose. He also made an unsupported assertion about summary executions in the Occupied Territories. Both happened during a radio interview.

Merely criticizing something Israel is doing isn't evidence of being biased against Israel.

I still haven't really investigated him so don't take this as a blanket endorsement. He might be very biased. Or he might just be very blunt and unwilling to tiptoe around a topic.

 

[laughing dog]

He stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians was unacceptable.

There is a lot of deliberate distortion going on here.

An attack on only civilians is wrong and a war crime. Attacking a military target when you know it will cause civilian casualties is an unfortunate consequence of war but is not considered wrongful unless the civilian casualties are out of line compared to the military benefit gained.

Note that mistakes do not count--if you believe you are aiming at something military but miss or are mistaken about your target it's not a war crime.

We agree - you are engaging in a lot of deliberate distortion. Regardless of your view, there people (and I am one of them) who says bombing civilians is unacceptable. It is unacceptable even if it one is supposedly targeting a military target and know you will hit civilians. No one brought up the red herring of war crimes. And unlike you, no one made any exceptions for any country.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lets look more carefully at that case. An anti-tank missile was fired from that location, a tank fired upon the source of the missile. (Nailing the launch site pronto is normal military practice as only the most sophisticated of such missiles are self-guiding. If you can nail the launcher fast enough the missile goes stupid and is likely to miss.) That means the soccer-players were very close to the launcher--why didn't they get the hell out of there when they saw someone setting up a missile? Note, also, that they were male in the 16-18 range--they very well might have been the missile crew, not soccer players.



Not very accurate:

https://honestreporting.com/tag/mouin-rabbani/

And it wasn't hard to find this. It's just you weren't looking for evidence of bias.

I said I hadn't fully investigated that source. Whatever led you to conclude that actually I had, but wasn't looking for evidence of bias?

And that source you linked to didn't actually present evidence that Rabbani is biased in his reporting. It showed him criticizing a proposed change in the death penalty in Israeli military law that would make it easier to impose. He also made an unsupported assertion about summary executions in the Occupied Territories. Both happened during a radio interview.

Merely criticizing something Israel is doing isn't evidence of being biased against Israel.

I still haven't really investigated him so don't take this as a blanket endorsement. He might be very biased. Or he might just be very blunt and unwilling to tiptoe around a topic.

The point is that while it technically might have made it easier it wasn't going to change what actually happens--in practice Israel doesn't even try for the death penalty. It was about making Israel look bad, not about presenting relevant information--and that shows bias.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians was unacceptable.

There is a lot of deliberate distortion going on here.

An attack on only civilians is wrong and a war crime. Attacking a military target when you know it will cause civilian casualties is an unfortunate consequence of war but is not considered wrongful unless the civilian casualties are out of line compared to the military benefit gained.

Note that mistakes do not count--if you believe you are aiming at something military but miss or are mistaken about your target it's not a war crime.

We agree - you are engaging in a lot of deliberate distortion. Regardless of your view, there people (and I am one of them) who says bombing civilians is unacceptable. It is unacceptable even if it one is supposedly targeting a military target and know you will hit civilians. No one brought up the red herring of war crimes. And unlike you, no one made any exceptions for any country.

This whole thing has been a side track from the fact that some on here will not accept that civilian casualties will happen in war--they say Israel should inflict none but when the tables are turned they don't say we should have left Germany alone in WWII.

How about addressing the point instead of derailing?

 

[Jarhyn]

We agree - you are engaging in a lot of deliberate distortion. Regardless of your view, there people (and I am one of them) who says bombing civilians is unacceptable. It is unacceptable even if it one is supposedly targeting a military target and know you will hit civilians. No one brought up the red herring of war crimes. And unlike you, no one made any exceptions for any country.

This whole thing has been a side track from the fact that some on here will not accept that civilian casualties will happen in war--they say Israel should inflict none but when the tables are turned they don't say we should have left Germany alone in WWII.

How about addressing the point instead of derailing?

And, more distortion. I dunno what the others here would see of Israel, but as for me, I would like to see fewer casualties, an acknowledgement of their failures, a commitment to doing better (made manifest but discussing new strategies), a cessation of new settlements, an end to the blockades, and ultimately either full sovereignty for Palestine or full citizenship and recognition of all the people living there in the new single state, with equal representation in government and a cessation of religiously motivated positions of state.

 

[laughing dog]

We agree - you are engaging in a lot of deliberate distortion. Regardless of your view, there people (and I am one of them) who says bombing civilians is unacceptable. It is unacceptable even if it one is supposedly targeting a military target and know you will hit civilians. No one brought up the red herring of war crimes. And unlike you, no one made any exceptions for any country.

This whole thing has been a side track from the fact that some on here will not accept that civilian casualties will happen in war--they say Israel should inflict none but when the tables are turned they don't say we should have left Germany alone in WWII.

You made an explicit accusation against me based on a blatant misreading/mischararacterization of clear language. Your blatant distortion was so obvious a number of posters pointed it out. Furthermore, your claim about "some" is unsubstantiated.

How about addressing the point instead of derailing?

I realize you fully believe that showing your "fact" is truthiness is a derail, but it is not.

How about you practice what you preach and address the point by
1) either substantiating your claim of fact or admit that is your opinion,
2) stop making blatantly false accusations about other posters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You made an explicit accusation against me based on a blatant misreading/mischararacterization of clear language. Your blatant distortion was so obvious a number of posters pointed it out. Furthermore, your claim about "some" is unsubstantiated.

How about addressing the point instead of derailing?

I realize you fully believe that showing your "fact" is truthiness is a derail, but it is not.

How about you practice what you preach and address the point by
1) either substantiating your claim of fact or admit that is your opinion,
2) stop making blatantly false accusations about other posters.

I asked a simple question: Why are civilian casualties unacceptable when Israel defends itself against the Muslims but acceptable when the US defends itself against the Nazis?

Stuff like "try better" is simply a derail, not addressing the root issue. Western armies try to minimize civilian casualties but driving them to zero is usually impossible, especially when the enemy deliberately hides it's targets amongst civilians.

 

[bilby]

You made an explicit accusation against me based on a blatant misreading/mischararacterization of clear language. Your blatant distortion was so obvious a number of posters pointed it out. Furthermore, your claim about "some" is unsubstantiated.

How about addressing the point instead of derailing?

I realize you fully believe that showing your "fact" is truthiness is a derail, but it is not.

How about you practice what you preach and address the point by
1) either substantiating your claim of fact or admit that is your opinion,
2) stop making blatantly false accusations about other posters.

I asked a simple question: Why are civilian casualties unacceptable when Israel defends itself against the Muslims but acceptable when the US defends itself against the Nazis?

And you got a simple answer - it's not.

Area bombing, as practiced by both the RAF and USAAF during WWII was a war crime. Fortunately for the people who developed and ordered these criminal acts, the winning side in that war wasn't put on trial for their crimes.

But that doesn't mean what they did wasn't morally wrong.

Stuff like "try better" is simply a derail, not addressing the root issue. Western armies try to minimize civilian casualties but driving them to zero is usually impossible, especially when the enemy deliberately hides it's targets amongst civilians.

That zero is unachievable is not an excuse for accepting any rate greater than zero, no matter how high or how avoidable.

If a military cannot achieve its strategic or tactical goals without civilian casualties, then it has a moral duty to ensure that those goals are sufficiently important as to be worth committing war crimes to achieve them.

Arguably this was true in WWII. Though it's doubtful that area bombing was essential for victory in Europe, it's certain that other strategies and tactics that caused civilian deaths were essential. So the deaths from area bombing were not justified, despite the fact that some civilian deaths were justified by the overarching goal of removing Hitler from power, and thereby saving far more civilians from violent deaths in the long run.

None of the Israeli tactics in Gaza appear to be effective in preventing significant numbers of civilians from being violently killed; So the killing of significant numbers of civilians through the use of such tactics is immoral.

What any of this has to do with ICE and the attack on their facility in Washington, I do not know.