Do you forget your own words?
As you clearly said:
Are you accusing yourself of lying now?
George Galloway 'beaten over Israel comments'
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
As you clearly said:
Are you accusing yourself of lying now?
Right, it could have been in the parking lot but could have been much further away, she didn't see it.Groggy, the parking lot is behind the hospital
In any event it shows that this doesn't prove that Hamas uses human shields, and has been shown the only definitive evidence shows Israel is the one that has a history and a policy of using human shields.
No, she said or was in the parking lot, and that it was very close. What the fuck are you even debating? Do you think that if it turns or to be fired from the street instead of the parking lot that this somehow gets Hamas off the hook?????
Everybody can see what you and Gryfin are doing: debating irrelevant minutia so you can dodge having to comment on the substantive point that Hamas fired a rocket from next to a hospital.
Everybody can see what you and Gryfin are doing: debating irrelevant minutia so you can dodge having to comment on the substantive point that Hamas fired a rocket from next to a hospital.
As you so clearly said:No, she said or was in the parking lot, and that it was very close. What the fuck are you even debating? Do you think that if it turns or to be fired from the street instead of the parking lot that this somehow gets Hamas off the hook?????
As you clearly said:
"During the night someone launched a rocket somewhere behind the hospital. "
That is the accurate and corrected account of her witness testimony.
'Somewhere behind' doesn't make it a war crime.
As does it being indiscriminate fire. As does Hamas using the hospital as their HQ.Somewhere behind does make it a war crime you nitwit.
Where behind?Somewhere behind does make it a war crime you nitwit.
How far makes it a war crime?
How far exactly was the rocket fired?
Who saw exactly where it was fired from?
We know from her other statement that it was very close. In fact she thought it was in the parking lot.
If it is close enough that a retaliatory strike might hit the hospital then it is a war crime, as that makes the patients a human shield. Plainly anywhere near the parking lot is a lot closer than that!
You are PATHETIC trying to justify Hamas firing rockets. First, those rockets at being fired at civilians. Second, civilians are being used as human shields at the launch site.
What sort of hateful miserable scum do you have to be to defend that?????
If it is close enough that a retaliatory strike might hit the hospital then it is a war crime, as that makes the patients a human shield. Plainly anywhere near the parking lot is a lot closer than that!
You are PATHETIC trying to justify Hamas firing rockets. First, those rockets at being fired at civilians. Second, civilians are being used as human shields at the launch site.
What sort of hateful miserable scum do you have to be to defend that?????
That argument has been shown to be false due to Israel's incredibly well funded army which brags about its ability to make pinpoint attacks.We know from her other statement that it was very close. In fact she thought it was in the parking lot.
If it is close enough that a retaliatory strike might hit the hospital then it is a war crime, as that makes the patients a human shield. Plainly anywhere near the parking lot is a lot closer than that!
You are PATHETIC trying to justify Hamas firing rockets. First, those rockets at being fired at civilians. Second, civilians are being used as human shields at the launch site.
What sort of hateful miserable scum do you have to be to defend that?????
You still haven't proven to us:
a) how far you consider as a safe distance
b) a list of safe areas away from civilian areas in one of the most densely populated places on the planet
c) exactly how far away the missile was
Right now you're guessing based on your belief that everything Israel does is right and everything Hamas does is wrong.
I mean it must suck that Netanyahu lost the war tactically, taking his popularity from 80% to 40% but even worse is that it has made the resistance incredibly popular amongst Palestinians, who in Gaza now say 'better the fast death in resistance then the slow death by blockade'.
Face it, you've brought no solid evidence.
You've given it your best shot, now its time to discuss Israel's use of human shields.
Your goal now is to argue about minutia and avoid the substantive issue that Hamas fired a rocket "very close" to the hospital and in fact from the hospital grounds. The AP, Washington Post, CBC, and NDTV have run similar stories. And all those rockets were fired at civilians as well
Whatever the answer to how close is too close, this rocket was clearly closer. We could debate that it should be at least 200 or 300 meters away, but this was clearly more like 10 or 20, the size of a parking lot, which is where she said it was launched from.
Whatever the answer to how close is too close, this rocket was clearly closer. We could debate that it should be at least 200 or 300 meters away, but this was clearly more like 10 or 20, the size of a parking lot, which is where she said it was launched from.
Now you're making shit up again.Whatever the answer to how close is too close, this rocket was clearly closer. We could debate that it should be at least 200 or 300 meters away, but this was clearly more like 10 or 20, the size of a parking lot, which is where she said it was launched from.
Give us proof of this location.
Proof that the parking lot at the hospital isn't hundreds of meters long? And then you will finally acknowledge what everyone else in the world already knows?
Debating minutia like this to avoid admitting the rocket was close to the hospital when we already have a reporter who says it was "vet close" is pathetic clown behavior.
Why can't you just be honest for once?
But if you agree a measurement of the size of the parking lot will end you objections there are lots of maps we can refer to.
Debating minutia like this to avoid admitting the rocket was close to the hospital when we already have a reporter who says it was "vet close" is pathetic clown behavior.
Why can't you just be honest for once?
But if you agree a measurement of the size of the parking lot will end you objections there are lots of maps we can refer to.
Now we have the words of Human Rights Watch, The Carter Center in Gaza, and even Hamas saying that rockets were fired from civilian centers. Grog knows better though.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-to-rocket-fire-from-residential-areas/
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-to-rocket-fire-from-residential-areas/
Actually, the Human Rights Watch, The Carter Center in Gaza and Hamas arguments all back up groggy's astute observations and casts doubt on IDF hasbara:Now we have the words of Human Rights Watch, The Carter Center in Gaza, and even Hamas saying that rockets were fired from civilian centers. Grog knows better though.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-to-rocket-fire-from-residential-areas/
Human Rights Watch:
“I don’t think there’s any doubt urban areas were used to launch rockets from within the Gaza Strip,” said Bill Van Esveld, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “What needs to be determined is how close to a populated building or a civilian area were those rocket launches.”
Carter Center in Gaza:
“Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?” said Sami Abdel-Shafi, a Palestinian-American who represents the Carter Center in Gaza. “The question is whether Israel’s response was proportionate.”
Hamas:
“The Israelis kept saying rockets were fired from schools or hospitals when, in fact, they were fired from 200-300 meters [220-328 yards] away. Still, there were some mistakes made and they were quickly dealt with,” Hamad told The Associated Press"
About IDF hasbara:
“Hamas’s excuses are outrageous, misleading and contrary to the evidence supplied by the IDF [the Israel Defense Forces] and the reality documented by international journalists on the ground in Gaza,” said Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, an Israeli military spokesman.
But a black-and-white satellite image released by the Israeli military illustrates the difficulties in proving the point. The army says the image, taken of the Gaza City neighborhood of **********h Radwan, shows four rocket-launching sites sitting next to a cluster of schools and a nearby residential neighborhood.
Such images, it says, are evidence that Hamas used built-up areas for cover and carelessly exposed civilians to danger in Israeli retaliatory strikes. However, the image itself is grainy and shows no clear signs of rocket activity, though rocket launchers are often hidden underground. The army refused to say how it had come to its conclusions.
Someone needs to study remedial English.Actually, the Human Rights Watch, The Carter Center in Gaza and Hamas arguments all back up groggy's astute observations and casts doubt on IDF hasbara...
“Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?” said Sami Abdel-Shafi, a Palestinian-American who represents the Carter Center in Gaza.
The word "may" is being used to acknowledge the point being made by others, before asking the question. It isn't casting doubt on the validity of the point.
What it shows is that there was no policy of using human shields by Hamas, that they were aware and tried to use a distance of 200-300 metres as their 'safe' distance.Someone needs to study remedial English.
The word "may" is being used to acknowledge the point being made by others, before asking the question. It isn't casting doubt on the validity of the point.
Now that we've cleared that up, its time to start talking about the real use of human shields, that of the IDF.
No, actually, it asks a question about whether such a policy exists.What it shows is that there was no policy of using human shields by Hamas, that they were aware and tried to use a distance of 200-300 metres as their 'safe' distance.
You evaded my point -- that Gryfin misinterpreted (hopefully, not intentionally) the use of the word "may." In fact, the Carter Center has acknowledged that Hamas used civilians as human shields.
Actually, it doesn't. You misinterpreted (hopefully, not intentionally) the use of the word "may." In this case the word "may" indicates that it is not definitive and the Cater Center further dilutes the claim of human shields by pointing out there is no evidence of consistent and widespread use. Unlike the Israeli "Neighbor" policy that uses Palestinians as human shields and has been videotaped.No, actually, it asks a question about whether such a policy exists.
You evaded my point -- that Gryfin misinterpreted (hopefully, not intentionally) the use of the word "may." In fact, the Carter Center has acknowledged that Hamas used civilians as human shields.
Wrong. It is an acknowledgement that Hamas used civilians as human shields. What the Carter Center is questioning is whether the use of civilians as human shields was widespread.Actually, it doesn't. You misinterpreted (hopefully, not intentionally) the use of the word "may." In this case the word "may" indicates that it is not definitive...
If the Carter Center spokesman had wanted to question whether or not it occurred, he would have said, "While Hamas may or may not have used civilians as human shields..."
What he said, "Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields...", is an acknowledgement that the point being made by others -- that Hamas used human shields -- is correct.
You don't get to create your own grammatical rules. Your point was wrong. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.
