Fat freaken chance!You know, Blackrock, maybe you're right.
Lets just go with Eric Blair's ruling and call the argument over and me the clear winner.
Done.
Fat freaken chance!You know, Blackrock, maybe you're right.
Lets just go with Eric Blair's ruling and call the argument over and me the clear winner.
Done.
You still haven't answered to being caught out on these three lies:Or maybe you can find me something in Goldstone that says Israel can't inspect cargo? Or from the ICRC? Nope. Not there.
Interesting choice, him being the only guy in the thread who agrees with you.You know, Blackrock, maybe you're right.
Lets just go with Eric Blair's ruling and call the argument over and me the clear winner.
Done.
He did lie. He said he didn't have any evidence on what information IDF had, and then he concluded something different later. He lied. It's just propaganda.You said Goldstone lied in his report.
Yup he's the one who made the allegations in the first place--hardly an unbiased party. He wrote that both sides had committed war crimes before even investigating.You said Goldstone announced his conclusions before even being hired to carry out his fact finding mission.
The statements in that article, whether you like it or not, are enough to indict Hamas for the most serious of war crimes. Civilians do not become legitimate targets just because they own guns, nor do they become legitimate targets just because they are defended by an armed forces. Canadian and American civilians have guns and are defended by the Canadian and American armed forces--as are the civilians of almost every country.You said that Hamas says settlers are a legitimate target based only on where they live.
You have debunked nothing. You just repeat the same tired old propaganda and ignore the facts. You have your head sunk deeply into the sand.Fuji, you already tried to support your outrageous lies with links that were easily debunked.
or thisHowever, entrenched Israeli settlement policy, long aided and abetted by the US, has made a two-state solution in former Mandatory Palestine impossible. An alternative formula may eventually be found, but not without many years of violence and rancour to come.
or thisAccording to one State Department document, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave an ultimatum to US Congressmen to “resolve” Iran’s nuclear program by the end of 2010 or that a “military solution” would be sought.
At the same time, Barak conceded that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in “unacceptable collateral damage,” though this did not appear to dissuade him from the belief that such an attack must be launched within the “window of opportunity” that he believed would close at the end of 2010 or shortly thereafter.
US officials were said to have been concerned about the reliability of Israeli assessments, noting that Israel had predicted that Iran would have nuclear weapons by 1998 “at the latest” and has repeatedly updated to a new deadline every few years.
In a June 2009 meeting between Defense Minister Ehud Barak and a U.S. congressional delegation, Barak claimed that the Israeli government "had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas."
"Not surprisingly," Barak said in the meeting, Israel "received negative answers from both."
Nope. Propaganda.Hamas and Israel should both be taken to the ICC, based on the Goldstone report and the UN HRC Flotilla report and then they can settle the matter of who is the worst war criminal. Fair?
Nope. That's your propaganda answer. In fact it undermines the most serious charges Goldstone makes and demonstrates his bias--the charge that Israel attacked civilians is the most serious charge he makes, and it turns out to be bunk. He SHOULD have simply written that he did not have the information and criticized Israel for failing to provide it. Instead he made up charges that he couldn't substantiate--he lied.Your Goldstone quips are tired and boring, but mostly repeatedly dismissed as minor quips designed to stifle debate about the number and scale of Israeli war crimes.
I thought you said you read the Goldstone report? Apparently you have no comprehension. And while you're at it, read the flotilla report.First of all there's no moral equivalence here, Hamas is accused of the most serious war crimes but even if ICC were to rule against Hamas what would be done about it? What army, other than IDF , would enforce it?
sigh.Second of all Israel is more than capable of investigating itself, therefore, per the ICC charter, and common sense, the ICC has no jurisdiction.
As opposed to Israel and the US?Third the ICC is structurally flawed and it is important that it NOT be empowered as it is an undemocratic institution, one run by dictators and authoritarians.
Debunked.Instead he made up charges that he couldn't substantiate--he lied.
sigh.I note you actually disputed NOTHING that I wrote--you just had a lot of hot air and a bunch of propaganda. You say you "proved" me wrong but in fact did not argue against a SINGLE point. Pathetic!!
... you have said exactly nothing here ...I thought you said you read the Goldstone report? Apparently you have no comprehension. And while you're at it, read the flotilla report.
And any army other then the IDF, P.A. and Hamas.
... same sentence as they'd get in Canada, moving on ...Just like it let off the two found guilty of using a 9 year old as human shields. Show trials designed to stifle ICC investigations, not justice.
Yup. Israel's courts, and domestic US courts, are far superior. Non-democratic courts like the ICC should be avoided at all costs, if you want to know why look at Gitmo: That's what happens when you place a court outside the ordinary protections of democracy. As opposed to Gitmo or the ICC, courts in Israel and in the United States are extremely good and offer the accused substantial rights to a fair trial.As opposed to Israel and the US?
Nope. You say "debunked" but in fact all you have ever written is that you think it is "minor" and a "quibble", in which you are wrong. This is your lame attempt to sidestep damning criticism, attempting to brush it off as a "minor quibble". The reality is that it's illegal to intentionally target civilians. Goldstone admits to having know knowledge, evidence, or information about intent or targeting. He thus CANNOT conclude whether a crime was committed--but he does anyway, because he isn't interested in the truth, he was hired to write propaganda and that's what he does.Debunked.
Non-democratic courts?Non-democratic courts like the ICC should be avoided at all costs, if you want to know why look at Gitmo: That's what happens when you place a court outside the ordinary protections of democracy.
You do realize that this makes no sense?Gitmo went through the motions of a court process but without the fundamental protections afforded under the US constitution it turned into a farce. The ICC offers no such guarantees either, and worse, instead of being backed by the military of a democracy (which is already damning) the ICC is backed directly by authoritarians and dictators. You can expect ICC show trials to be even worse than Gitmo as a result, lacking the democratic guarantees necessary for a fair trial, and subject to political manipulation and interference by its democracy hating masters.
Blatantly wrong.Goldstone admits to having know knowledge, evidence, or information about intent or targeting. He thus CANNOT conclude whether a crime was committed
fuji;3343517The reality is that it's illegal to intentionally target civilians. Goldstone admits to having know knowledge said:Well if you are going to use that basis then you automatically absolve the Palis as their rockets are so inaccurate they cannot really be "targeted" but are more a political weapon.
No, you moron, Gitmo was run outside the US, and did not benefit from the democratic guarantees afforded there. That has been made abundantly clear to anyone capable of comprehending English.Three things, your shining example of the US runs Gitmo.
What sort of absurd and ludicrous viewpoint are you arguing now? Is it your assertion that dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have the best courts????? Moron. Complete moron.Therefore, democratic countries do not guarantee good courts.
Where have I ever backed the ICC?????????????Second, up until you found that Palestinians had petitioned the court to consider their cases, you backed the ICC, proving once again that you are morally bankrupt and trying to back Israel above the law and morality.
No, it is not. The overwhelming majority of votes at the UN are cast by dictatorships.Third, the UN is run democratically.
You like to say this but of course you can't say why. You just like to say it. Reality is you're unable to refute the point with logic, fact, or argument. So you just spew unsubstantiated propaganda.Blatantly wrong.
That is not what he said.
Stop lying.
The palis have made enough statements about their belief that they have a right to attack Israeli civilians that it's not necessary. They've essentially admitted they do target civilians, especially with respect to settlers.Well if you are going to use that basis then you automatically absolve the Palis as their rockets are so inaccurate they cannot really be "targeted" but are more a political weapon.
Gitmo is run by the US. Can you not understand this? A democratic country is responsible for one of the worst kangaroo courts we've seen for a long time. Sure, Bush tried to skirt the rules to get away with it, but hey, he also admitted to torture.Gitmo was run outside the US, and did not benefit from the democratic guarantees afforded there.
Sure and the majority of votes in Israel are probably cast by illegally colonizing settlers, war criminals and those bent on ethnic cleansing.The overwhelming majority of votes at the UN are cast by dictatorships.
See above.The ICC is not part of the UN. It has its own broken system of voting which is, again, absolutely dominated by dictators and authoritarians.
I asked for proof, you came back with fudged quotes.Fact: Goldstone admits to not having the information necessary to determine why IDF targetted the police station. Admits.
Exactly, that's why he recommended it be taken to court. Why can't you understand that he didn't determine guilt, he determined whether charges might be valid.Fact: The crime he accuses Israel of requires that information to determine guilt.
False.Fact: He accuses Israel of the crime anyway, instead of honestly asserting the truth--which is that he doesn't have enough information to know.
Gitmo is not subject to the democratic guarantees of the US constitution. Can you not understand this? Even though it's run by a democracy, the fact that it was run beyond the reach of the US constitution was enough to make it a farce. And you seriously expect the ICC, run by dictatorships, to be credible???????????? It'll be even worse than Gitmo.Gitmo is run by the US. Can you not understand this?
The founder of HRW disagrees with you.Sure and the majority of votes in Israel are probably cast by illegally colonizing settlers, war criminals and those bent on ethnic cleansing.
By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli Government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to meet Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian victims.I asked for proof, you came back with fudged quotes.
You failed at backing this up.
Exactly, that's why he recommended it be taken to court.
False. Goldstone went further than that. Despite lacking the information necessary to do so, he asserted that Israel DID commit a crime. He did not say that Israel MIGHT have committed a crime and that further investigation was required to find out--THAT would have been honest. Goldstone lied.Why can't you understand that he didn't determine guilt, he determined whether charges might be valid.
That's my point, its run by a democracy, and your own example shows that just being run by a democracy doesn't guarantee fair courts.Gitmo is not subject to the democratic guarantees of the US constitution. Even though it's run by a democracy, the fact that it was run beyond the reach of the US constitution was enough to make it a farce.
No secret.That's Goldstone admitting he had no access to Israeli officials or information.
and more.the Israel Government has presented no other basis on which a presumption can be made against the overall civilian nature of the police in Gaza. It is true that the police and the security forces created by Hamas in Gaza may have their origins in the Executive Force. However, while the Mission would not rule out the possibility that there might be individuals in the police force who retain their links to the armed groups, it believes that the assertion on the part of the Government of Israel that “an overwhelming majority of the police forces were also members of the Hamas military wing or activists of Hamas or other terrorist organizations”,280 appears to be an overstatement that has led to prejudicial presumptions against the nature of the police force that may not be justified.
andThere is no question that the approximately 100 policemen who died in the attacks on the stations visited by the Mission were deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli armed forces.
424. The attacks on the police headquarters and five police stations visited by the Mission were carried out during the first minutes of the surprise air bombing campaign launched by the Israeli armed forces against Gaza shortly before 11.30 a.m. on 27 December.
and426. The Mission could not verify the allegations of membership of armed groups of policemen. In half the cases, moreover, the allegations appear to be based merely on an equation of membership in Hamas (in itself alleged on the basis of unverifiable information) with membership in al-Qassam Brigades, which in the view of the Mission is not justified. Finally, even according to the study referred to by the Israeli Government, 34 policemen without any affiliation to Hamas or a Palestinian armed group were killed in the armed operations, the great majority of them in the bombardment of police stations on the first day of the military operations.
and finally, and most importantly:34. To examine whether the attacks against the police were compatible with the principle of distinction between civilian and military objects and persons, the Mission analysed the institutional development of the Gaza police since Hamas took complete control of Gaza in July 2007 and merged the Gaza police with the “Executive Force” it had created after its election victory. The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency. The Mission also concludes that the policemen killed on 27 December 2008 cannot be said to have been taking a direct part in hostilities and thus did not lose their civilian immunity from direct attack as civilians on this ground. The Mission accepts that there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants. It concludes, however, that the attacks against the police facilities on the first day of the armed operations failed to strike an acceptable balance between the direct military advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may have been members of Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life (i.e. the other policemen killed and members of the public who would inevitably have been present or in the vicinity), and therefore violated international humanitarian law.
The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.
Prove that he lied.Goldstone went further than that. Despite lacking the information necessary to do so, he asserted that Israel DID commit a crime. He did not say that Israel MIGHT have committed a crime and that further investigation was required to find out--THAT would have been honest. Goldstone lied.
Correct, you need strong constitutional guarantees. The ICC not only lacks those strong constitutional guarantees, it isn't even run by a democracy. It seems you are violently agreeing with me that courts like the ICC and Gitmo are dangerous and should be dissolved.That's my point, its run by a democracy, and your own example shows that just being run by a democracy doesn't guarantee fair courts.
Let's highlight this part: the Israel Government has presented no other basis on which a presumption can be made against the overall civilian nature of the police in GazaNo secret.
Here's what he says:
The ICC has enough support behind it constitutionally. Certainly it is now proving less corrupt then American justice. Gitmo should be dissolved and Bush put on trial, and preferably at the ICC.Correct, you need strong constitutional guarantees. The ICC not only lacks those strong constitutional guarantees, it isn't even run by a democracy. It seems you are violently agreeing with me that courts like the ICC and Gitmo are dangerous and should be dissolved.
I request a citation here.Now had he [Goldstone] stuck with this claim that he doesn't know he would have concluded that without further access to Israeli information it's impossible for the commission to determine what happened. He could deplore that. He could demand that Israel be required to share this information. That would be sensible.
That's not what he did though, right? Instead, he lied.
WHAT??? ICC has nothing whatsoever backstopping it other than a bunch of dictators and authoritarians.The ICC has enough support behind it constitutionally.
Already provided to you on this thread. What do you dispute here:I request a citation here.
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what Goldstone found out about the police station, the only thing that matters is what IDF believed it knew at the time it attacked, and why.And while you're at it, prove that Goldstone could not have found the same information that Israel hold's.