Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Violence

Come now, give the full definition.

"Report: give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated."

Sorry, it remains an unsubstantiated opinion.
 
Come now, give the full definition.

"Report: give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated."

Sorry, it remains an unsubstantiated opinion.

WTF are you going on about, seriously are you trying to play silly word games. Regardless, report, opinion, fact is the pentagon has sent a team to study Israeli methods on minimising casualties in this type of urban warfare.

Lets go with "oh it is his opinion only", thats fine, I will take the opinion of the chief of staff of the USA army over some clueless mybb internet warrior.
 
Come now, give the full definition.

"Report: give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated."

Sorry, it remains an unsubstantiated opinion.

Denying that a report can be spoken, and then supplying a definition which states that a report may be spoken is almost as surreal as claiming a report from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and someone privy to top secret military intelligence, was nothing more than "unsubstantiated opinion."
 
WTF are you going on about, seriously are you trying to play silly word games. Regardless, report, opinion, fact is the pentagon has sent a team to study Israeli methods on minimising casualties in this type of urban warfare.

Lets go with "oh it is his opinion only", thats fine, I will take the opinion of the chief of staff of the USA army over some clueless mybb internet warrior.

His claim is contradicted by organisations on the ground, who actually have done investigations. I say again, if 70% of the people you kill are civilians you're not doing a very good job of 'limiting civilian casualties'. Especially if you bomb schools.

But hey, guess I can't expect the resident Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd to ever give an inch and criticise them for anything.

Denying that a report can be spoken, and then supplying a definition which states that a report may be spoken is almost as surreal as claiming a report from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and someone privy to top secret military intelligence, was nothing more than "unsubstantiated opinion."

Then provide the substantiation, please. I'm not holding my breath.

Did he observe it? No. Did he do it? No. Did he investigate it? No. So we're left with he 'heard' it and is now giving an opinion on it.

An opinion contradicted by reality.
 
His claim is contradicted by organisations on the ground, who actually have done investigations. I say again, if 70% of the people you kill are civilians you're not doing a very good job of 'limiting civilian casualties'. Especially if you bomb schools.


The only people that claim a 70% civilian death rate from the last conflict is hamas, based on the fact that they gave orders that every fatality is to be called a civilian and is a blatant lie, which you get repeating.
It took almost two years after the military confrontation, in December 2008-January 2009, for Hamas interior minister Fathi Hamad to acknowledge that around half of the approximately 1,200-1,400 Palestinian fatalities in that conflict were combatants. Half =50%.
Let me repeat for you half.


The UN OHRC gave a figure of 72% based on the reports from Hamas health ministry. They have come on record telling the BBC that the UN HR primary objective is in recording the casualties but not their designation as civilian or combatant.

B'tselem, the anti Israel NGO puts the civilian death rate from the last conflict, wait for it, as 40% - if we talking about organisations on the ground then they are a lot more reliable than hamas health ministry.

So please tell me again about your 70% civilian death rate when in the 2008 conflict hamas claim 50% and in the 2014 conflict B'tselem claim 40%.:erm:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-gaza
 
Last edited:
The only people that claim a 70% civilian death rate from the last conflict is hamas, based on the fact that they gave orders that every fatality is to be called a civilian and is a blatant lie, which you get repeating.
It took almost two years after the military confrontation, in December 2008-January 2009, for Hamas interior minister Fathi Hamad to acknowledge that around half of the approximately 1,200-1,400 Palestinian fatalities in that conflict were combatants. Half =50%.
Let me repeat for you half.


The UN OHRC gave a figure of 72% based on the reports from Hamas health ministry. They have come on record telling the BBC that the UN HR primary objective is in recording the casualties but not their designation as civilian or combatant.

B'tselem, the anti Israel NGO puts the civilian death rate from the last conflict, wait for it, as 40% - if we talking about organisations on the ground then they are a lot more reliable than hamas health ministry.

So please tell me again about your 70% civilian death rate when in the 2008 conflict hamas claim 50% and in the 2014 conflict B'tselem claim 40%.:erm:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-gaza

Uhm, no. The IDF claims the UN figures are from the Gazan Health Ministry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

"However, even in the compiling of these preliminary figures, we cross-verify between different sources, not only media and several different human rights organisations, but also use other sources, including, for example, names of alleged fighters released by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and notices by armed groups in Gaza claiming someone as a member."

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights also got a 75% figure. The IDF themselves place it at 55%.

Also, since we're liking what military folk from other countries have to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/gaza-civilian-death-toll-military-training-experts

However, Andrew Exum, a former US army officer who has studied Israel's military campaigns, said the IDF had a long history of mistakes causing many civilian casualties.

"Errant artillery and air strikes have unfortunately been something of a theme in Israel's conflicts in both southern Lebanon and Gaza over the past two decades. There are good strategic reasons to avoid using air power and artillery in these conflicts: they tend to be pretty indiscriminate in their effects and make it difficult for the population under fire to figure out what they're supposed to do to be safe," said Exum, who was a defence department special adviser on the Middle East.

"I'm not sure what the issue is. In 2006 and 2008, it was pretty clear the IDF's combined armed skills – their ability to integrate artillery and air power into ground campaigns – had atrophied since the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. But I don't know whether the issue remains poor training, a lack of forward observers talking to the artillery batteries and aircraft, or commanders who just don't think avoiding civilian casualties is a priority."

However, military analysts and human rights observers say the IDF is still using unguided, indirect fire with high-explosive shells, which they argue is inappropriate for a densely populated area like Gaza – where 1.8 million people live in an area the size of the Isle of Wight. The biggest artillery weapon being used is a 155mm howitzer, mounted on tracks to make it mobile. It typically fires a fragmentation shell weighing 44kg that spreads shrapnel over a wide area. Such shells have a lethal radius of 50 to 150 metres and causes injury up to 300 metres from its point of impact. Furthermore, such indirect-fire artillery (meaning it is fired out of direct sight of the target) has a margin of error of 200 to 300 metres.

The use of indirect artillery fire in residential areas is not forbidden under international humanitarian law, but its legality depends on a balance between potential military gain against risk of harm to non-combatants. On that basis, Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International's senior crisis response adviser, said it was hard to see a military justification for its use in Gaza. "The margin of error of an artillery shell is well known. If you are shooting into a civilian area, there is a high chance of hitting civilians and a low chance of hitting your military objective, unless your military objective is to terrorise and punish a population," she said.

The IDF is reported to have a "safety zone", the closest an artillery target can be to civilians areas, of 100 metres. That is significantly less than the casualty radius of 155mm artillery shells, and Human Rights Watch found in a 2007 report that the rule appeared to be ignored in Gaza.
 
I question the motives of those who hold Israel to a uniquely high standard, while giving others a free pass.

Does your moral equivalence extend to all conflicts? Do you equate the actions of the Allies to that of the Nazis because German civilians were killed? Or is it only in the conflict between Israel and those who want it destroyed that you cannot differentiate between the side that wilfully targets civilians, and uses them as human shields, and the side that does more than any other defence force to minimise civilian casualties.
 
I question the motives of those who hold Israel to a uniquely high standard, while giving others a free pass.

Does your moral equivalence extend to all conflicts? Do you equate the actions of the Allies to that of the Nazis because German civilians were killed? Or is it only in the conflict between Israel and those who want it destroyed that you cannot differentiate between the side that wilfully targets civilians, and uses them as human shields, and the side that does more than any other defence force to minimise civilian casualties.

I question the motives of those who feel the need lie repeatedly.

And the Allies (or Israel in this case) should not be automatically shielded from any and all criticism just because their enemy is worse.
 
I question the motives of those who feel the need lie repeatedly.

And the Allies (or Israel in this case) should not be automatically shielded from any and all criticism just because their enemy is worse.

I'll wait in keen anticipation for you to come up with links proving all these lies.
 
I question the motives of those who feel the need lie repeatedly.

yeh, you should stop doing it.

And the Allies (or Israel in this case) should not be automatically shielded from any and all criticism just because their enemy is worse.

Well on this we can agree. 40% - 50% civilian casualty rate is still too high. Hopefully in future inevitable conflicts regardless of hamas conduct this figure will be reduced even more as Israel implements whatever it has learnt from the last combat.
 
LOL! Is that's the best you can do? It's as pitiful as you arguing what does and does not constitute a report.

I'd say that you should stop now before you lose what remains of your reputation, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

(In response to OD's "liar accusation")
 
Last edited:
LOL! Is that's the best you can do? It's as pitiful as you arguing what does and does not constitute a report.

I'd say that you should stop now before you lose what remains of your reputation, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

(In response to OD's "liar accusation")

Uh-huh. Difficult when you're shown to have lied quite blatantly.
 
yeh, you should stop doing it.

Where'd I lie?

lived666 said:
Well on this we can agree. 40% - 50% civilian casualty rate is still too high. Hopefully in future inevitable conflicts regardless of hamas conduct this figure will be reduced even more as Israel implements whatever it has learnt from the last combat.

Great, we're on the same page then.
 
LOL! Is that's the best you can do? It's as pitiful as you arguing what does and does not constitute a report.

I'd say that you should stop now before you lose what remains of your reputation, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

(In response to OD's "liar accusation")

I have found Orbital to be one of the most balanced and fair posters on this site across numerous topics. You however seem to have one agenda which seems to be as a champion for all things Israeli without any concession to them doing anything wrong.

With regards to the Top US general you may want to look at this article..

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/praising-israelis-tactics

Dempsey made the remarks at a Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs conference in New York. He praised widely-criticized tactics, claiming that Israel’s dropping of leaflets and its “roof-knocking” sufficiently warned civilians of impending attacks.

In response, Amnesty international said the following:...

There is no way that firing a missile at a civilian home can constitute an effective ‘warning’,” Phillip Luther, Amnesty International’s Director of the Middle East and North Africa Program said in July, at the start of the assault. “Amnesty International has documented cases of civilians killed or injured by such missiles in previous Israeli military operations on the Gaza Strip.

“Imagine you are in Gaza and there are airstrikes everywhere, and many families are in the bottom floor of their home,” he said. “Families miss the sound of the ‘warning’ missile because it sounds like just another explosion.”

So yes, perhaps the General Dempsey approves of the notion of roof knocking but the reality on the ground is that it doesn't work which means innocent civilians get killed.
 
I question the motives of those who hold Israel to a uniquely high standard, while giving others a free pass.

Does your moral equivalence extend to all conflicts? Do you equate the actions of the Allies to that of the Nazis because German civilians were killed? Or is it only in the conflict between Israel and those who want it destroyed that you cannot differentiate between the side that wilfully targets civilians, and uses them as human shields, and the side that does more than any other defence force to minimise civilian casualties.

You claim that they are the only democracy in the Middle east - if you want this to actually mean something then they should be held to a higher standard.
 
So yes, perhaps the General Dempsey approves of the notion of roof knocking but the reality on the ground is that it doesn't work which means innocent civilians get killed.



Who is ultimately to blame for the death of these civilians, the belligerent force who started the war and fires its missiles from civilian areas or the side defending itself. Do you honestly not see the difference?

Can you name any other defence force that warns its enemy before retaliating?
 
You claim that they are the only democracy in the Middle east - if you want this to actually mean something then they should be held to a higher standard.

Do you dispute the that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East?

Of course Israel is held to a higher standard, it's the fact that the standard they're held to is not expected from any other nation that is the problem.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X