[ThereBeDragons]

You forgot to mention that after all that, the IDF eats them also. The children's meat is more tender and served in restaurants in Tel Aviv.

Why do you have such infinite faith in your nation's armed forces to do no wrong?

[Zyx]

You forgot to mention that after all that, the IDF eats them also. The children's meat is more tender and served in restaurants in Tel Aviv.

I honestly would not be surprised. The Israeli [faithful or neutral adherents to the Israeli government] are a sickening lot if ever there were one.

--

Ter, you make me wonder what the Germans said of the Nazis who impaled Jew babies atop their bayonets. I imagine that there were Germans who said that Germans were just trying to live normal lives, whereas the Jewish defense encampments justified the Holocaust. You and your Pro-Israeli lot sicken me.

[Dempsey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ation.html

Last Updated: 5:52PM GMT 09 Jan 2009

Jewish groups condemned a broadcast in which a British Muslim academic appeared to justify the targeting of Israeli children.

Dr Kamal El-Helbawy, the founder of the Muslim Association of Britain, told a discussion program that, while he condemned the killing of civilians, he believed all Israeli children were "future soldiers".

He said: "A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that the Arabs are like contemptible sheep.

"In elementary school they pose the following math problem - 'In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?'. This is taught in the Israeli curriculum."

Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli group which monitors the Arab language media, said: "This is a call to violence and bloodshed. To say that the Israeli school curriculum is teaching the murder of Arabs is totally outrageous and factually wrong.

"That goes in people's ears and spreads like wildfire and the listeners think it's OK to go and murder Israelis."

[sploop!]

^ Oh, right - well that explains everything then, doesn't it?

'British Muslim Academic appears to justify the targeting of Israeli children, making the previous actual killing of Arab children by the IDF absolutely fine'.

Is that what you are trying to say? If not, what are you saying?

[Sayed Zakerya]

Dr Kamal El-Helbawy, the founder of the Muslim Association of Britain, told a discussion program that, while he condemned the killing of civilians, he believed all Israeli children were "future soldiers".

This is a wrong analysis. Yet, a lot of Humanitarian groups raised their worries regarding the beliefs & views that are taught to the Israeli youth. They are annoyed with the existing signals of the spreading discrimination ideologies & beliefs among the Israeli students. These youngsters are expressing severe racism views towards the Arabs as recorded in most of the executed polls:-

three-quarters of the Israeli Jewish high school pupils surveyed - 800 pupils from 11 schools - who expressed contempt for Arabs.
Seventy-five percent said Arabs were "uneducated"; 75% also said Arabs were "uncivilized." And here's the most stunning result: 74% of the Jewish high school students who were polled said Arabs were "unclean."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... JPArticl...
Such racist views should have been dealt with long time ago in a healthy, civilized & democratic society. But when citizenship advantages are secured to the majority because of their religion or race, aggressive attitudes against the minority can easily be traced.

Parents in south Tel Aviv who are seeking to prevent two Arab girls from attending their
children's school are denying accusations of racism, saying they're worried about
academic standings.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... cle%2FSh...

Jewish parents deny Arab girl place in Jezreel Valley daycare
By Haaretz Staff and Channel 10

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1049765.html
The comparison between the victims numbers on the Israeli & the Palestinians sides proves that the Israeli children are safe & were safe through all the stages of the ME conflict. It is the Palestinian children , Youth, Women & Men who were & remain subjected to indiscriminate slaughter.

[Maas]

International agreements are not law. As well, trade issues are different from high politics.

Well that's an idiotic statement. International trade agreements = international business is high politics.
Raging war doesn't make the world go round.

But they haven't been fair, they haven't been impartial, they haven't been systematic. They've been selective winners' justice and nothing more.

and exactly where haven't the international court been fair and impartial?
They got an American as a judge and even a Jew if I remember correctly.
Probably all about that wall thing Israel lost. Not weird at all since Israel build it on occupied territory.

So basically, you're clueless and just throwing moronic statements about because otherwise, you wouldn't say much of anything. Effin' brilliant, d00d.

While I read the article and explain what it says...you're just trolling around claiming others make moronic statements with nothing backing it up.

Where does it say in international law that shelling heavily populated areas is illegal?
Towards your article, problematic is the key word, which is quite a bit different from prohibited. Even then it is only problematic if the chance of hitting the launcher is low.

Geneva Convention IV, PART II: General Protection of Populations against certain Consequences of War
Additional Protocol I, PART IV: Civilian Population, Section I. General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

[Dan]

Well that's an idiotic statement. International trade agreements = international business is high politics.

International business is not

high politics

.

High politics is about security of your nation and your people. It is much different from international trade which is simply about prosperity.

and exactly where haven't the international court been fair and impartial?

I've already given examples here.

Geneva Convention IV, PART II: General Protection of Populations against certain Consequences of War
Additional Protocol I, PART IV: Civilian Population, Section I. General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

I answered this in the monster thread (which you participated in) and nobody made even a half decent rebuttal.

[ThereBeDragons]

1) The individual soldiers prosecuting the war are engaged in the occupation of killing and putting themselves in the situation where the risk of death is high. To then tell them not to take the steps necessary to protect themselves and to intentionally further endanger themselves to avoid hurting the enemy they are actively trying to kill and who are actively trying to kill them is completely irrational. To then hold them legally accountable for a rapid decision made under the stress of combat where their lives were, as far as they could knew or could ascertain given the inherent fog of war, in mortal peril is ludicrous and can not possibly be considered just.

Does this general argument apply to the rape of children during wartime?

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Danholo wrote:

The IDF, as an army, is fine, and operates under strict guidelines. Despite stories being told, Israeli soldiers don't take "pot shots" at Palestinians, child or adult, and take extreme caution not to hurt the innocent.

Care to explain this then?

War Angel wrote:

2) There was fire from his home.

Where did you get this from? As you've already been asked this and chosen to ignore it I can only conclude that this is one of your '99% accurate statements'.Please post a source for this statement.

[War Angel]

Care to explain this then?

It's a tank firing a shell at something beyond the camera's perspective. Personally, I think they should have used the .5" machine-gun, but I wasn't in command of the tank at that moment, so I'll save my judgment.

Where did you get this from? As you've already been asked this and chosen to ignore it I can only conclude that this is one of your '99% accurate statements'.Please post a source for this statement.

I can't be arsed to find a source right now. There was fire from the house and from around it, or maybe not, maybe it was hit by mistake. Either way, I don't care much - Israel does not, nor has it ever targeted civilians.

[clanko]

I can't be arsed to find a source right now. There was fire from the house and from around it, or maybe not, maybe it was hit by mistake. Either way, I don't care much - Israel does not, nor has it ever targeted civilians.

God that is some comically lackluster shit right there.

[jimjilin]

Dan, your compassion for those kids - really moving. Does your picture indicate you are a Christian? If so you are giving Christians a bad name.

Dan, do you accept that the Israelis ethnically cleansed the Palestinians out of their homes when the state of Israel was founded? Why can't these people go back? Here's a website about the massacres:
http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/massacres.htm

And why are American taxpayers paying for this brutality! What are we getting out of it? Here's a website for Americans:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html

[danholo]

Care to explain this then?

I can't explain much, except that the tape survived magically intact even after it - it's quite a constricted view of the entire incident, as it takes 30 seconds, there's music, all acceptable within the formula of American news... and it's al-Jazeera! A good try at media spectacle but nothing more.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Danholo:

Quote:
Care to explain this then?

I can't explain much, except that the tape survived magically intact even after it - it's quite a constricted view of the entire incident, as it takes 30 seconds, there's music, all acceptable within the formula of American news... and it's al-Jazeera! A good try at media spectacle but nothing more.

So what you're saying is that in that video the Israeli soldiers didn't "take "pot shots" at Palestinians, child or adult, and" took "extreme caution not to hurt the innocent."




.