• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

Iriemon said:
After the attack, the Israeli military said an initial inquiry had shown that several mortar shells had been fired at Israeli forces "from within the Jabaliya school" and that Israeli forces had returned fire.

I agree that sounds like a bald faced lie.
Click to expand...


It was an initial report?

I guess that another standard for Israel is that they have perfect information before defending herself.

Idiotic.
 
Tucker Case said:
Who is saying "allowed"? Where did I say that?

I'm saying I hold my friends to a higher standard than I do my enemies. I EXPECT those I consider enemies to do attrocious things, hence they are the ENEMY. I in turn expect my FRIENDS to not sink to the level of the ENEMY.

What is difficult to understand about this?

I'm not saying Israel has no right to defend itself, I'm saying that we should hold them to a higher standard than that which we condemn our enemies for.
Click to expand...

"How dare you do that?!! I know THEY are, too, but that's just the way THEY are."

What's not to understand? "Holding someone to a higher standard" means you expect behavior from them that you find excusable in someone else.
 
JMak said:
Israel was not shooting at the school.

You are aware that some nations can triangulate mortar, artillery, and rocket fire and determine the firing location, right?

Why do you insist that they were shooting at the school rather than the location on or next to the school grounds where Israel had detected mortar fire coming from?
Click to expand...

Aren't smart bombs pretty accurate?

Where is the report from the IDF asserting that the school was hit be mistake?

There initial claim, now admitted to be a false according to the UN report, was that they targeted the school because morter fire was coming from the school. And, according to you, using smart bombs.

Doesn't sound like an accident to me.
 
JMak said:
Israel was not shooting at the school.
Click to expand...
Correct. Israel engaged the mortars positioned outside the school.
In the process, the school was hit.

Why do you insist that they were shooting at the school rather than the location on or next to the school grounds where Israel had detected mortar fire coming from?
Click to expand...
Because the desire to criticize Israel at all costs generally requires misrepresenting the truth.
 
Iriemon said:
Aren't smart bombs pretty accurate?

Where is the report from the IDF asserting that the school was hit be mistake.

There initial claim, not admitted to be a false according to the UN report, was that they targeted the school because morter fire was coming from the school. And, according to you, using smart bombs.

Doesn't sound like an accident to me.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say they were using smart bombs to attack schools, liar.

I said, as part of the broader point that israel attempts to mitigate civilian casualties, that Israel uses smart weapons.

Now, care to address that point or do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting my comments?
 
Iriemon said:
Aren't smart bombs pretty accurate?

Where is the report from the IDF asserting that the school was hit be mistake?

There initial claim, now admitted to be a false according to the UN report, was that they targeted the school because morter fire was coming from the school. And, according to you, using smart bombs.

Doesn't sound like an accident to me.
Click to expand...

Repeat yourself, much?
 
Tucker Case said:
Who is saying "allowed"? Where did I say that?

I'm saying I hold my friends to a higher standard than I do my enemies. I EXPECT those I consider enemies to do attrocious things, hence they are the ENEMY. I in turn expect my FRIENDS to not sink to the level of the ENEMY.
Click to expand...

There you go, again.

Look, as I already noted, your standard for Israel would leave Israel defenseless and unwilling to defend herself.

Second, how is dropping leaflets notifying Gazans to evacuate, using smart weapons, targetting weapons at all equivalent to using suicide bombers and unguided weapons, designed only to inflict maximum civilian casualties?

Well?

What is difficult to understand about this?

I'm not saying Israel has no right to defend itself, I'm saying that we should hold them to a higher standard than that which we condemn our enemies for.
Click to expand...

You're right, you're not saying Israel doesn't have a right to defend herself, only that Israel should not defend herself because doing so would violate your sensibilities.
 
JMak said:
Oh? So you're a-okay with a ground invasion? Color me overwhelmed with surprise. :roll:
Click to expand...

Considering that isn't the first time in this thread I mentioned that, your surprise is an indication that you go flying off the handle without being fully aware of the facts. I, for one, am not surprised by this.



Yeah, It could be a dummy rocket that the Arabs and Muslims fire into israel. It could be untargetted artillery fire. It could be dummy bombs just pickeled off aircraft with no concern for their targets.
Click to expand...

It could also be a targetted task force that lowers the amount of civilian casualties, but puts added risk on their own soldiers, who are willing combatantss, unlike the 40 civilians killed.



Because nothing you had stated previously suggested that you believed Hamas was guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

So you attack me when I do? Very well. Seems amazingly stupid to me, but have at it.



Measured judgment on your part.
Click to expand...

Why? So you can attack me for "stating the obvious". :lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
It could also be a targetted task force that lowers the amount of civilian casualties, but puts added risk on their own soldiers, who are willing combatantss, unlike the 40 civilians killed.
Click to expand...
It COULD be... but counterbattery fire requires quick action, as artillery units (especially mortars manned by terrorists) fire off a few rounds and then run to avoid retalliation.

In an instance like this, the only efficite response is artillery or airstrikes.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
"How dare you do that?!! I know THEY are, too, but that's just the way THEY are."

What's not to understand? "Holding someone to a higher standard" means you expect behavior from them that you find excusable in someone else.
Click to expand...

False.

Holding someone to a higher standard is expecting them not to engage in the behavior you find INexcusable from someone else.

If I find it inexcusable for Hamas to kill civilians, I find it EQUALLY inexcusable for Israel to do so.

I do not want the US to ally with Hamas specifically BECAUSE of their inexcusable behavior. Thus, I ALSO want my ally to not engage in the same INexcuxsable behavior.
 
Originally Posted by Iriemon
So Israel used smart bombs to attack a school when mortar fire came from outside the school.
Click to expand...

JMak said:
Did they?
Click to expand...

Let me post my source:

JMak said:
Your ignorance has no bounds.

Israel is using smart weapons. Israel is warning residents to evacuate neighborhoods before they attack.

What the hell would satisfy you?
Click to expand...

According to my source, the appropriate response to you even asking this question is "Your ignorance has no bounds."

If you have an issue with that, take it up with the source.

I'd agree if that were the case. It wasn't.
Click to expand...

Were you an eye witness?

Iriemon: Cite that Israel warned the school to evacuate before shooting at it with smart bombs?
Click to expand...

Jmak: Who argued they had?
Click to expand...

JMak said:
Israel is warning residents to evacuate neighborhoods before they attack.

What the hell would satisfy you?
Click to expand...

But I agree that with the school it doesn't sound like that warned anyone.
 
Moderator's Warning:
General Thread Warning - I realize that this is a volatile topic. However, every topic can and must be be discussed with civility. So let's plz drop all the personal animosity and concentrate on civil debate. Passion is fine, but personal attacks must cease. Infractions/Thread Bans will ensue if this warning goes unheeded.
 
Tucker Case said:
Considering that isn't the first time in this thread I mentioned that, your surprise is an indication that you go flying off the handle without being fully aware of the facts. I, for one, am not surprised by this.
Click to expand...

No, I'm truly surprised that you'd be all for a ground invasion rather than standoff weapons. I mean, what you're more supportive off is a blunt-force attack into densely populated neighborhoods which would further expose not only those residents to harm, but Israeli soldiers. Why is that preferable to limited engagement? Especially if, as you claim to be, you're sensitive to additional civilian casualties?

It could also be a targetted task force that lowers the amount of civilian casualties, but puts added risk on their own soldiers, who are willing combatantss, unlike the 40 civilians killed.
Click to expand...

Right...so a mortar team sets up and fires their weapon. Then, they're moving because they know IDF can triangulate on their position.

What you're arguing for is not a limited size force. Your logic here would require a large presence in Gaza to rapidly move and attack suspected positions.

So you attack me when I do? Very well. Seems amazingly stupid to me, but have at it.
Click to expand...

Because I have no confidence in your good faith.

Why? So you can attack me for "stating the obvious". :lol:
Click to expand...

If you possessed and applied measured judgment you wouldn't be advocating for Israeli behavior that would render her defenseless and concedes the advantage, tactically and morally, to Hamas.
 
Tucker Case said:
If I find it inexcusable for Hamas to kill civilians, I find it EQUALLY inexcusable for Israel to do so.
Click to expand...
I would agree.. if the circumstances werre the same.
 
Iriemon said:
If you have an issue with that, take it up with the source.
Click to expand...

My comments and statements are clear. There's no need to deliberately misrepresent them.

Were you an eye witness?
Click to expand...

I see, so we can only comment if we're eyewitnesses.

So, you are here discussing this....why?

But I agree that with the school it doesn't sound like that warned anyone.
Click to expand...

You agree with what? No one commented either way.

Still misrepresenting comments and posts, liar?
 
Tucker Case said:
False.

Holding someone to a higher standard is expecting them not to engage in the behavior you find INexcusable from someone else.

If I find it inexcusable for Hamas to kill civilians, I find it EQUALLY inexcusable for Israel to do so.

I do not want the US to ally with Hamas specifically BECAUSE of their inexcusable behavior. Thus, I ALSO want my ally to not engage in the same INexcuxsable behavior.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, they haven't. The reason they haven't has already been made clear.

But when it comes to the point where you condemn one for it, and simply say "that's way it is" for the others, then yeah, you're making improper distinctions.
 
Goobieman said:
It COULD be... but counterbattery fire requires quick action, as artillery uniots (like mortars manned by terrorist) fire off a few rounds and then run to avoid retalliation.

In an instance like this, the only efficite response is artillery or airstrikes.
Click to expand...

The risk is not all that high, especially when one considers the body counts.
 
JMak said:
No, I didn't say they were using smart bombs to attack schools, liar.
Click to expand...

Liar.

"Your ignorance has no bounds. Israel is using smart weapons."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1057878005

I said, as part of the broader point that israel attempts to mitigate civilian casualties, that Israel uses smart weapons.
Click to expand...

I see, when you wrote "Your ignorance has no bounds. Israel is using smart weapons," in response to a post about targeting civilians and schools, the ignorance of no bounds about Israel using smart weapons wasn't about *this* thread.

OK, thanks for clarifying. Now, your story is that in attacking the school, Israel didn't use smart weapons to mitigate civilian casualties. Got it.

Now, care to address that point or do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting my comments?
Click to expand...

You're doing that fine yourself.
 
Tucker Case said:
False.

Holding someone to a higher standard is expecting them not to engage in the behavior you find INexcusable from someone else.
Click to expand...

A second time:

On what basis do you draw an equivalnecy between using tactics and weapons that reduce civilian casualties and tactics and weapons that deliberately intend to maximize civilian casualties?

Well?

If I find it inexcusable for Hamas to kill civilians, I find it EQUALLY inexcusable for Israel to do so.
Click to expand...

So there's no difference then between deliberately killing civilians and trying to mitigate civilians being killed when the enemy is deliberating putting those civilians at risk?

Do you have no moral compass? Or are you just a moral coward?

I do not want the US to ally with Hamas specifically BECAUSE of their inexcusable behavior. Thus, I ALSO want my ally to not engage in the same INexcuxsable behavior.
Click to expand...

I see...so using tactics and weapons to mitigate harm to civilians is exactly the same as taking deliberate action not only to maximize civilian casualties but put them at risk?

Are you serious?
 
Harshaw said:
Well, first of all, they haven't. The reason they haven't has already been made clear.
Click to expand...

They haven't "what"? Killed civilians? I think that the evidence suggests otherwise.

But when it comes to the point where you condemn one for it, and simply say "that's way it is" for the others, then yeah, you're making improper distinctions.
Click to expand...

I never did that though.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The risk is not all that high, especially when one considers the body counts.
Click to expand...
Its not about risk, its about efficacy. You cannot react quickly enough with a ground team to get the mortars before they move.
 
JMak said:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
After the attack, the Israeli military said an initial inquiry had shown that several mortar shells had been fired at Israeli forces "from within the Jabaliya school" and that Israeli forces had returned fire.

I agree that sounds like a bald faced lie.
Click to expand...
It was an initial report?

I guess that another standard for Israel is that they have perfect information before defending herself.

Idiotic.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for illustrating us it is idiotic to trust initial reports of the Israeli army.
 
Goobieman said:
Its not about risk, its about efficacy. You cannot react quickly enough with a ground team to get the mortars before they move.
Click to expand...

But the mortars are very, very likely to be inneffective. Whereas the smart bomb is going to be quite effective. If the target in question also happens to be a school, I think that ground forces are the answer.

If the target in question is an different building, not as much. I'm not denouncing Israel for the sake of denouncing Israel. I'm denouncing a specific action to a minimal threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom