Hamas will NEVER accept peace (for flub)

[fuji]

Reading slowly is fine but why don't you try to understand the article then post your comment. The decision was made with malice against the general population. Say it with me CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Tell me in what war the economic capability of the enemy has not been a target? Any money Hamas earns it will use to buy weapons. Any money it is prevented from earning will limit its ability to buy weapons.

Oh wait it's different for Israel. It was OK for Canada, Britain, and the UK to target the economic engines of Germany, Italy, and Japan in WW2, and it was wonderful to slap the oil sanctions on Iraq in advance of the invasion in order to destroy the economy there, and the trade embargoes imposed on Cuba by the United States are laudable, and the sanctions slapped on North Korea by the entire world are just and good--but if Israel does the same thing to its attackers that is horrible, just horrible.

I forgot there is one rule for Israel and a different rule for everybody else. How stupid of me to forget that!

 

[flubadub]

Tell me in what war the economic capability of the enemy has not been a target? Any money Hamas earns it will use to buy weapons. Any money it is prevented from earning will limit its ability to buy weapons.

I forgot there is one rule for Israel and a different rule for everybody else. How stupid of me to forget that!

One rule for everyone.
The Geneva Conventions.

This is getting particularly entertaining.
First, the UN passes Goldstone's report.
Fuji tries to call Goldstone biased (poor zionist he is).
Then Fuji tries to call the UN undemocratic.
Then its pointed out that the UN SC has passed numerous resolutions against Israel.
Fuji comes out against the UN SC, unless its something that the US can veto on behalf of Israel.
Now Israel is caught by wikileaks causing crimes against the Geneva Conventions.
Time for Fuji to rant about how unfair the Geneva Conventions are.
Very predictable.

Now all you can do is to complain that its unfair that Israel have to hold itself to the Geneva Conventions.
You've no moral ground left.
Its time to admit that you support crimes against humanity.

 

[fuji]

One rule for everyone.
The Geneva Conventions.

So why wasn't the boycott of Iraqi oil a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Why aren't the blockade and economic sanctions against Cuba violations? Plainly they've made Cubans poorer! Why aren't the sanctions against North Korea? Why weren't the attacks on German, Italian, and Japanese economic centers violations?

You know why? Because diminishing the economic capability of your enemy in a war is in fact a legitimate military objective, it destroys your enemy's ability to fight. It remains a legitimate way to attack your enemy up until the point where it becomes a humanitarian crisis. Per Israel policy their goal is to reduce Gaza's economic output as far as they can without precipitating a humanitarian crisis--that denies Hamas the money and resources to buy and build weapons with which to attack Israel. Same argument as in North Korea, as in Iran, as in Cuba, as in WW2 Germany, Japan, and Italy. In fact in every fucking war in history that's how it has ALWAYS been done.

Only when it comes to Israel do the rules change and suddenly it becomes a "war crime".

Note that the ICRC has never called the reduction of economic output in Gaza a war crime. They specifically singled out the border closure, and the restriction on the flow of aid--and that was fixed by Israel more or less immediately.

Has it dawned on you yet that your viewpoint relies on lies and misrepresentation? That you are having to stretch and twist stories to make them fit your view?

Really -- how stupid are you? Or is it just that you're blinded by hatred?

 

[flubadub]

So why wasn't the boycott of Iraqi oil a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Why aren't the blockade and economic sanctions against Cuba violations? Plainly they've made Cubans poorer! Why aren't the sanctions against North Korea? Why weren't the attacks on German, Italian, and Japanese economic centers violations?

Hey, you can argue those were war crimes if you like. I'd probably agree.
It doesn't make Israel's actions any less of a crime, mind you.

Only when it comes to Israel do the rules change and suddenly it becomes a "war crime".

Note that the ICRC has never called the reduction of economic output in Gaza a war crime. They specifically singled out the border closure, and the restriction on the flow of aid--and that was fixed by Israel more or less immediately.

Gaza is a unique situation.
Name me another place in the world where 1.4 million people live inside a prison, under similar situations.
And no, nobody has said the blockade has stopped, other then Israeli politicians.
Why do you think there are still flotillas heading there?


So now that you've admitted its a war crime, do you still support Israel's actions?

 

[toguy5252]

Name me another place in the world where 1.4 million people live inside a prison, under similar situations.

Name me a prison with a hotel like the Grand Palace?

http://www.israellycool.com/2010/07/20/a-taste-of-concentration-camp-gaza-the-grand-palace-hotel/

You are a pathetic clown.

 

[fuji]

Hey, you can argue those were war crimes if you like. I'd probably agree.

Then your position boils down to "all war is war crime" and your whole position becomes an empty construct.

Gaza is a unique situation.
Name me another place in the world where 1.4 million people live inside a prison, under similar situations.

The word "prison" is just your empty rhetoric, if you want to make a serious argument choose more neutral language.

Other cases of nations subject to sanctions and restrictions on travel such that the local population has suffered grevious poverty are North Korea and Cuba. There are many others if you care to look. In WW2 Germany, Italy, and Japan were also examples of the same thing, up until regime change was forced upon them and obviously now they're free of all that. Germany also attempted to cripple England economically in WW2, although failed militarily to do so. No-one ever accused Germany of a war crime for THAT part of the war, not even the victors! That's because it's an acceptable way to wage war.

Crippling the economy of your enemy is a legitimate tactic in war. The level at which it becomes a war crime is where it goes beyond crippling the economy, and becomes a humanitarian disaster. That's the line that must not be crossed. The fact that Gaza is poor is not collective punishment. The issues the RC singled out as potential crimes were things like water supply and food, not jobs and economic progress. Israel, note, immediately redressed those concerns.

Everybody with a brain knows that a government's ability to wage war is tied directly to its ability to manage economic output.

 

[basketcase]

Here's a not bad article from the star:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/916235--sharp-debate-surrounds-death-of-palestinian-woman?bn=1

Truth coming out. She wasn't at the protest.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4010391,00.html

 

[flubadub]

Truth coming out. She wasn't at the protest.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4010391,00.html

Nope.
Try the NY times, with links to video footage of the event.
Stop drinking the koolaid, the IDF has been caught lying too many times.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

[blackrock13]

Truth coming out. She wasn't at the protest.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4010391,00.html

As Basket case said FD and as reported by the NY times in your reference


Ms. Abu Rahmah’s mother told The Times this week that she and her daughter did not take part in the protest march on Friday but “were watching the protest from a distance when a cloud of tear gas wafted their way, causing her daughter to collapse.” She died the next day.

Can anyone think of the word, precondition. Now we have an eyes witness account that the woman was not at the protest.

 

[flubadub]

Ms. Abu Rahmah’s mother told The Times this week that she and her daughter did not take part in the protest march on Friday but “were watching the protest from a distance when a cloud of tear gas wafted their way, causing her daughter to collapse.” She died the next day.

Where's the debate?
She was killed by tear gas launched at protesters.
The only slight confusion is from initial reports that called her a protester, when she was there, apparently observing.
Does that now make her death ok?

 

[blackrock13]

Where's the debate?
She was killed by tear gas launched at protesters.
The only slight confusion is from initial reports that called her a protester, when she was there, apparently observing.
Does that now make her death ok?

Even after the report that said she was some distance away, you still say she was there.

You are so dumb and you still continue to prove it every day.

Why don't you take your own advice and take a break and leave this all behind? Maybe you should take a Mediterranean cruise and visit the Holy Land. Don't forget your Canadian passport, assuming you have one.

 

[basketcase]

Flubs denials get sadder and sadder.

The woman clearly was not at the protest and died of a pre-existing condition and medical incompetence yet it must always be Israel's fault.


It seems pretty obvious to me that (in her mother's words) "tear gas wafting their way" is no where near lethal and the family and activists are just trying to capitalize on her unfortunate death.

 

[fuji]

Where's the debate?
She was killed by tear gas launched at protesters.
The only slight confusion is from initial reports that called her a protester, when she was there, apparently observing.
Does that now make her death ok?

Police all around the world use tear gas to disperse violent crowds. What's the issue here? Are there different rules for Israel? Israeli police are now not supposed to use tear gas when crowds get violent, unlike Canadian or American or British police???

I don't understand what the issue is supposed to be here. If she was so frail that she could die from tear gas drifting her way then she already had one foot in the grave.

 

[flubadub]

You guys are pathetic.
I post a link with video and eyewitness reports and you are still pretending she wasn't there.

 

[fuji]

Flub, can you explain what you think the issue is here? A woman who can be killed by tear gas must have been in pretty frail health. Tear gas is used by police everywhere. Is it your view that police in Canada and the United States should not use tear gas?

EVEN IF the Palestinian claims are true this is a non-issue. Her death would be classified as an unfortunate accident if it occurred here because no-one expects tear gas to be lethal.

 

[basketcase]

You guys are pathetic.
I post a link with video and eyewitness reports and you are still pretending she wasn't there.

Considering her mom says she wasn't ... of course her mom is probably just be a deep cover zionist agent.

 

[blackrock13]

Considering her mom says she wasn't ... of course her mom is probably just be a deep cover zionist agent.

That's the second time that fact has been pointed out to FD. I wonder if it will stick this time.

 

[Mervyn]

Ok lets clear things up.

She was not Participating at the protest, but she was watching it from a distance, when a cloud of Tear gas wafted their way.

This information was voluntarily supplied by him.

Flub is technically correct , but he cherry picking from that info.

What I find interesting, and something I doubt flub will even acknowledge , is how this cloud of Tear wafter their way (this also means the gas was not AIMED at her ) caused her to collapse, and no one else.
Even her own Mother, who would have been older , did not seem to suffer any serious injury for this "wafting cloud"

Flub, you always talk about wanting both sides to be equally held accountable, but when you argue on this board, you consitantly will not acknowledge any information which harms your own arguments, even when YOUR the one who supplied them.

 

[flubadub]

If this was an isolated incident you could make a case that this is not such a big deal. But its not.
From the New York Times link above:

The protest organizers insist that they are committed to unarmed demonstrations, although Israeli troops who block the marchers — and use tear gas to disperse the crowds — are often pelted with rocks by young Palestinians. In 2009, Ms. Abu Rahmah’s brother, Baseem, was killed at one of the protests, after being struck by a tear-gas canister. The episode was captured in a graphic video posted online.

If you watch the video, you can see that tear gas is being used as a weapon. The protests are generally peaceful, yet the IDF shoots tear gas at the protesters. How are peaceful protests supposed to happen if you risk being killed or seriously injured?

 

[Mervyn]

If this was an isolated incident you could make a case that this is not such a big deal. But its not.
From the New York Times link above:


If you watch the video, you can see that tear gas is being used as a weapon. The protests are generally peaceful, yet the IDF shoots tear gas at the protesters. How are peaceful protests supposed to happen if you risk being killed or seriously injured?

How can you claim these protests are generally peaceful when in your own post you include the information that IDF soldiers are OFTEN hit by rocks ? ?