UN official voices deep concern as Hamas raids offices of aid groups - Polidicks

So if I bring 40 friends, beat up you and your friend, and then in a courtroom it's decided we are clear of all charges, because 40 of us claim we are innocent while the two of you claim we are guilty, and 40>2 obviously, so we're obviously right, and there's no need to look at the facts presented by each side, because the majority is always right, all the time.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599711] Now for the second source, how about some sources that the UN high commissioner for human rights can declare it illegal?[/QUOTE] What's funny is, you pretty much demonstrate you do not give a shit about any fair laws in any sector. You literally will pick what you want out. That's called loopholes, burnemdown. and you're using them to justify oppression guess what that makes you: guess... nah, I'll do it for you makes you an asshole. [editline]11:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22618140]So if I bring 40 friends, beat up you and your friend, and then in a courtroom it's decided we are clear of all charges, because 40 of us claim we are innocent while the two of you claim we are guilty, and 40>2 obviously, so we're obviously right, and there's no need to look at the facts presented by each side, because the majority is always right, all the time.[/QUOTE] shitty analogy. [editline]12:01AM[/editline] [quote=burnemdown;22599845]that report is regarding the gaza war, not the blockade, and is full of biased opinions and based itself mainly on [b]palestinians eye-witnesses[/b].[/quote] not like they went through it amirite? [editline]12:01AM[/editline] good fucking dammit, burnemdown, the fuck is wrong with you? [editline]12:04AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599963]I'm not. I'm labeling the IDF as biased too, and most of the media in Israel.[/quote] lol, you have NEVER fucking done that. I even remember your stupid "this is why Israel needs to exist" video [quote]But to say the Goldstone report is't biased is just being idiotic.[/QUOTE] Well the UN said something bad about us, well golly, it must be biased. but if they don't say anything gtfo, Palestinians Free Israel! [editline]12:05AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22602608]Well I didn't know it mentioned it, I stand corrected. It is still extremely biased, just like the HRW organization.[/QUOTE] lol, you think [B]HUMAN RIGHT[/B][B]S[/B] watch is biasd (hint: maybe you didn't see it, so I highlighted some important sections of that comment, facepunch user burnemdown) [editline]12:06AM[/editline] OH WAIT, biased for... well, human rights not like that's a fucking bad thing unless their little brown people of course! [editline]12:13AM[/editline] I have a theory, since you zionist scumsuckers love to use the word "anti-Semitic" so much, I shall use the word Islamphobic and Racist. [editline]12:13AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22602838]The Government of Israel issued a 32-point preliminary analysis of the report[/QUOTE] dude... [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599963]I'm not. I'm labeling the IDF as biased too, and most of the media in Israel. But to say the Goldstone report is't biased is just being idiotic.[/QUOTE] At least WAIT a bit before going against your fucking word. jesus fuck [editline]12:17AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22603445]Yeah because calling your sources biased is the most stupidest thing ever but calling my sources biased - nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE] A human rights orginisation vs the government in question how do you not see this, burnemdown. Listen, if you didn't shoot your self in the foot, that would hold some water lol also, lol at this part [quote]The report ignores Israel's own investigations into its conduct, overlooks the many independent levels of scrutiny in Israel's judicial system, misrepresents Israel's legal mechanisms and shows disdain for democratic values.[/quote] this is so fucking ambiguous lol "disdain for democratic values" haha [editline]12:18AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;22603487]Holy fuck. You're calling the UN biased, which though can be true, it has no reason to be. We're calling Israel biased in a report evaluating IT'S OWN ACTIONS IN A WAR. My god.[/QUOTE] He calls the UN biased when they have dissent of Israel then uses them as the final word when they don't it's funny, really [editline]12:22AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22604433]You guys think that Israel is like one person. You do realize that when there are investigations, they are not done by the people who are being investigated. I suppose that when an American citizen is found innocent by an American judge, it's because he is American as well?[/QUOTE] remember when the officers ordered the WP strike on that hospital? they got charged, investigated, etc. however they got a slap on the wrist. [editline]12:25AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22604730]I guess that's why that one Israeli judge sentenced all those Arabs to death in the apartheid state. Oh wait no, that was Goldstone in South Africa, my bad.[/QUOTE] "He was one of several liberal judges who issued key rulings that undermined apartheid from within the system by tempering the worst effects of the country's racial laws."

Funny thing is - no-one's actually refuted Israel's reasoning behind their claims of bias. Everyone's poured shit on them for being Israel, but the majority of their logic remains seemingly sound.

Quality Israel v Palestine thread once again oh look, amute is here spreading love. how nice.

[QUOTE=Warhol;22618810]What's funny is, you pretty much demonstrate you do not give a shit about any fair laws in any sector. You literally will pick what you want out. That's called loopholes, burnemdown. and you're using them to justify oppression guess what that makes you: guess... nah, I'll do it for you makes you an asshole. [editline]11:59PM[/editline] shitty analogy. [editline]12:01AM[/editline] not like they went through it amirite? [editline]12:01AM[/editline] good fucking dammit, burnemdown, the fuck is wrong with you? [editline]12:04AM[/editline] lol, you have NEVER fucking done that. I even remember your stupid "this is why Israel needs to exist" video Well the UN said something bad about us, well golly, it must be biased. but if they don't say anything gtfo, Palestinians Free Israel! [editline]12:05AM[/editline] lol, you think [B]HUMAN RIGHT[/B][B]S[/B] watch is biasd (hint: maybe you didn't see it, so I highlighted some important sections of that comment, facepunch user burnemdown) [editline]12:06AM[/editline] OH WAIT, biased for... well, human rights not like that's a fucking bad thing unless their little brown people of course! [editline]12:13AM[/editline] I have a theory, since you zionist scumsuckers love to use the word "anti-Semitic" so much, I shall use the word Islamphobic and Racist. [editline]12:13AM[/editline] dude... At least WAIT a bit before going against your fucking word. jesus fuck [editline]12:17AM[/editline] A human rights orginisation vs the government in question how do you not see this, burnemdown. Listen, if you didn't shoot your self in the foot, that would hold some water lol also, lol at this part this is so fucking ambiguous lol "disdain for democratic values" haha [editline]12:18AM[/editline] He calls the UN biased when they have dissent of Israel then uses them as the final word when they don't it's funny, really [editline]12:22AM[/editline] remember when the officers ordered the WP strike on that hospital? they got charged, investigated, etc. however they got a slap on the wrist. [editline]12:25AM[/editline] "He was one of several liberal judges who issued key rulings that undermined apartheid from within the system by tempering the worst effects of the country's racial laws."[/QUOTE] /thread

I think both sides need to sort out their problems and get it sorted otherwise they will be stuck in he past.

[QUOTE=starpluck;22631118]/thread[/QUOTE] More like: /facepalm

[QUOTE=hypern;22631206]I think both sides need to sort out their problems and get it sorted otherwise they will be stuck in he past.[/QUOTE] Both sides hate each other with a burning passion so "putting it all behind us and starting new" is definitely not going to work.

I don't hate, I do have a problem when someone can't come to grips with the bitter truth. I'm not anti-Israel, so to say. They have a right to exist and have self-determination, as much as the Palestinians have.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;22630762]Funny thing is - no-one's actually refuted Israel's reasoning behind their claims of bias. Everyone's poured shit on them for being Israel, but the majority of their logic remains seemingly sound.[/QUOTE] disdain for democratic values. come on, it's all fluff. [editline]10:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22631320]More like: /facepalm[/QUOTE] just ignore all points, you really showed me there burnemdown

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22631320]More like: /facepalm[/QUOTE] more like /you have absolutely no response because he just tore apart your ridiculous posts, and you've just started to realise how frankly ridiculous what you are saying is

Tore apart? His post had no point to it, all of it is mindless blabbering without saying anything.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22660204]Tore apart? His post had no point to it, all of it is mindless blabbering without saying anything.[/QUOTE] Read it again.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22660204]Tore apart? His post had no point to it, all of it is mindless blabbering without saying anything.[/QUOTE] You're in denial.

[QUOTE=Warhol;22618810]What's funny is, you pretty much demonstrate you do not give a shit about any fair laws in any sector. You literally will pick what you want out. That's called loopholes, burnemdown. and you're using them to justify oppression[/quote] And you're making shit reasons for justifying terror. [QUOTE=Warhol;22618810]shitty analogy.[/quote] Making claims without reasons or explanations as usual. [QUOTE=Warhol;22618810]not like they went through it amirite?[/quote] Oh yeah because at trials you totally just ask the victim what happened and only hear one side of the story, yes, that's the best way to see who's guilty and who's not. [quote]lol, you have NEVER fucking done that. I even remember your stupid "this is why Israel needs to exist" video[/quote] And this is related... how? [quote]Well the UN said something bad about us, well golly, it must be biased.[/quote] Yeah because hearing only one side of the story isn't biased at all. [quote]lol, you think [B]HUMAN RIGHT[/B][B]S[/B] watch is biasd (hint: maybe you didn't see it, so I highlighted some important sections of that comment, facepunch user burnemdown)[/quote] lol, you think that they aren't biased even though [B]THEIR FOUNDER[/B] said they are shit and don't know what the hell they're talking about, plus all the reasons listed here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch[/url] (hint: maybe you didn't see it, so I highlighted some important sections of that comment, facepunch user warhol) [quote]At least WAIT a bit before going against your fucking word. jesus fuck[/quote] Uhhh yes they've presented the facts which prove how the Goldstone report is biased, I don't see what's wrong with that. [quote]A human rights orginisation vs the government in question how do you not see this, burnemdown.[/quote] More like "A human rights organizaiton who don't know what the hell they're doing and are biased against the government in question, vs the government in question". [quote]He calls the UN biased when they have dissent of Israel then uses them as the final word when they don't it's funny, really[/quote] All I'm saying is that if someone comes close to the authority of declaring the blockade illegal, is the UN security council, which still hasn't declared the blockade illegal, so until then, there's no argument. [quote]remember when the officers ordered the WP strike on that hospital? they got charged, investigated, etc. however they got a slap on the wrist.[/quote] Source. [quote]"He was one of several liberal judges who issued key rulings that undermined apartheid from within the system by tempering the worst effects of the country's racial laws."[/QUOTE] He still sentenced people to death. Kinda hard to do when you're a human rights lover or whatever he claims to be.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22660468]And you're making shit reasons for justifying terror. Making claims without reasons or explanations as usual. Oh yeah because at trials you totally just ask the victim what happened and only hear one side of the story, yes, that's the best way to see who's guilty and who's not. And this is related... how? Yeah because hearing only one side of the story isn't biased at all. lol, you think that they aren't biased even though [B]THEIR FOUNDER[/B] said they are shit and don't know what the hell they're talking about, plus all the reasons listed here: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch[/URL] (hint: maybe you didn't see it, so I highlighted some important sections of that comment, facepunch user warhol) Uhhh yes they've presented the facts which prove how the Goldstone report is biased, I don't see what's wrong with that. More like "A human rights organizaiton who don't know what the hell they're doing and are biased against the government in question, vs the government in question". All I'm saying is that if someone comes close to the authority of declaring the blockade illegal, is the UN security council, which still hasn't declared the blockade illegal, so until then, there's no argument. Source. He still sentenced people to death. Kinda hard to do when you're a human rights lover or whatever he claims to be.[/QUOTE] Lol the HRW criticisms, did you even read that. Anti-Arab-League or pro-Israel bias Also concerning the Goldstone, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about do you. Whatever he claims to be? What? If the UN didn't think he was suited to the job, guess what, they wouldn't have picked him. also more like a human rights organisation that has been criticized for being [B]PRO ISRAEL[/B] vs [B]ISRAEL.[/B]

It's not only the bias, it's the fact that they don't know what the hell are they talking about: "Poor research and inaccuracy The Times accuses HRW of lack of sufficient expertise to report on warfare because the organization has never hired any former members of any military or any person with expertise in warfare with the sole exception of Marc Garlasco.[25] The Times accuses HRW of overriding its own researcher who wished to rescind a factually inaccurate report accusing Israel of responsibility for the Gaza beach explosion (2006).[25] HRW has been accused of bias in gathering evidence because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "sceptical of anyone in a uniform."[25] Robert Bernstein, founder of HRW, now accuses the organization of poor research methods, for relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."[26] According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."[25]"

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22660560]It's not only the bias, it's the fact that they don't know what the hell are they talking about: "Poor research and inaccuracy The Times accuses HRW of lack of sufficient expertise to report on warfare because the organization has never hired any former members of any military or any person with expertise in warfare with the sole exception of Marc Garlasco.[25] The Times accuses HRW of overriding its own researcher who wished to rescind a factually inaccurate report accusing Israel of responsibility for the Gaza beach explosion (2006).[25] HRW has been accused of bias in gathering evidence because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "sceptical of anyone in a uniform."[25] Robert Bernstein, founder of HRW, now accuses the organization of poor research methods, for relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."[26] According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."[25]"[/QUOTE] but did you also miss this. [quote]In the wake of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict"]Goldstone report[/URL], HRW accused in 2009 Israel and its supporters of an organized campaign of false allegations and misinformation aimed to discredit the group over its findings over the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War"]Gaza War[/URL]. HRW ties the criticism to a statement by a senior official in the Israeli prime minister's office in June 2009, pledging to "dedicate time and manpower to combating" human rights organisations. HRW said it concluded the criticism amounted to an organized effort since attacks from different sources appeared to be co-ordinated. HRW said that similar language and arguments in criticism implied that there had been prior coordination. Iain Levine of HRW said "We are having to spend a lot of time repudiating the lies, the falsehoods, the misinformation".[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#cite_note-69"][70][/URL] A group of 10 Israeli rights groups has protested that the Israeli government has been attempting to "instill fear and silence or alarm vital organizations" that were engaging in free public discourse[/quote]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;22660641]but did you also miss this.[/QUOTE] OK so what they're saying is that Israel's criticism against the HRW is mostly lies and biased and whatever, but as far as I've read most of the criticism doesn't come from Israel alone. For example the paragraph I posted that you quoted in your post. And another one not stated by Israel: "The Times accuses HRW of "imbalance" since it ignores many human rights abusing regimes while covering other zones of conflict "intensely", notably Israel. It issued 5 lengthy reports on Israel in one 14 month period, whereas in 20 years it has issued only 4 reports on the conflict in Kashmir, despite the fact that there have been 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and the fact that "torture and extrajudicial murder have taken place on a vast scale."[27] It issued no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. One source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let’s face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel.” [25] The Times also accuses HRW of failing to report on human rights abuses of Arabs when "perpetrators are fellow Arabs."[25]" They are basically just as anti-Israel as Israel is anti-them. Both are biased and lie or misrepresent the facts.

BurnEmDown that analysis needs more evidence and references. Those preliminary points are more so accusations than actual evidence. Your fixation on Goldstone being biased doesn't have any sound basis. It seems like your entire arguement for Goldstone being biased comes from the Israeli govt. report and the fact that Goldstone wrote a critical article. How should writing a critical article make you biased? He was incredibly critical of Hamas in the same report, does that make him biased against Hamas as well? The argument of Goldstone being biased would hold more ground, if the past shown him having bias against Israel. But that's just not true, it's actually the opposite as he was a member of a South African Zionist group. Also your previous accusation of the guy "participating" in an apartheid regime (the same one your govt. tried to sell nuclear arms) is impartial as you can easily find out that he never supported it. [quote]South Africa While Goldstone was still a child, his grandfather encouraged him to study law. He later recalled: "My grandfather decided when I was about four [that] I was going to be a barrister, so I just always assumed I was. It turned out to be a wise decision."[8] He was educated at King Edward VII School in Johannesburg[9] and subsequently undertook a six-year legal studies course at the University of the Witwatersrand, from which he graduated in 1962 with a BA LLB cum laude.[2] At the university Goldstone became involved in the international effort to end South Africa's apartheid system. He had been brought up in an anti-apartheid atmosphere; although his parents were not activists, they were opposed to racial discrimination and this was to have a profound influence on his later career.[8] Like many other Jewish South Africans, he chose to become conspicuously active in public life in an effort to oppose or alleviate the worst aspects of apartheid.[10] While he was chairman of the university's Students' Representative Council, he campaigned against the exclusion of black students.[11] He also attracted attention from the state security police by having contact with anti-apartheid groups within South Africa, including the African National Congress, which was a banned organisation at the time. On one occasion he secretly tape-recorded a spy sent by the police to infiltrate the anti-apartheid student movement at the university. The recording was later used as evidence in the firing of the national police commissioner.[7] He was elected president of the National Union of South African Students, in which capacity he represented South African youth abroad at international gatherings.[12][/quote] also lol, [url]http://www.haaretz.com/news/goldstone-s-daughter-my-father-s-participation-softened-un-gaza-report-1.7776[/url]

[url]http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes[/url] [url]http://www.hrw.org/node/82366[/url] Oh but these are not biased because they aren't critical of Israel

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22660940]BurnEmDown that analysis needs more evidence and references. Those preliminary points are more so accusations than actual evidence. Your fixation on Goldstone being biased doesn't have any sound basis. It seems like your entire arguement for Goldstone being biased comes from the Israeli govt. report and the fact that Goldstone wrote a critical article. How should writing a critical article make you biased? He was incredibly critical of Hamas in the same report, does that make him biased against Hamas as well? The argument of Goldstone being biased would hold more ground, if the past shown him having bias against Israel. But that's just not true, it's actually the opposite as he was a member of a South African Zionist group. Also your previous accusation of the guy "participating" in an apartheid regime (the same one your govt. tried to sell nuclear arms) is impartial as you can easily find out that he never supported it. also lol, [url]http://www.haaretz.com/news/goldstone-s-daughter-my-father-s-participation-softened-un-gaza-report-1.7776[/url][/QUOTE] He was biased because he refrained from watching video evidence provided by the IDF, but instead counted more on eye-witness account of Palestinians. It's not only that. He basically based his entire report on the Palestinian side, and didn't check anything regarding Israeli reports. When you base yourself on one side more than the other, that's bias. [QUOTE=starpluck;22661180][url]http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes[/url] [url]http://www.hrw.org/node/82366[/url] Oh but these are not biased because they aren't critical of Israel[/QUOTE] They may not be biased, but the HRW isn't only biased, but also don't know what they're talking about sometimes. You see: "The Times accuses HRW of lack of sufficient expertise to report on warfare because the organization has never hired any former members of any military or any person with expertise in warfare with the sole exception of Marc Garlasco." If these reports aren't regarding warfare issues then they may relevant and informative, but if they are regarding warfare, I'm going to bet there's a ton of crap in them.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22662614]He was biased because he refrained from watching video evidence provided by the IDF, but instead counted more on eye-witness account of Palestinians. It's not only that. He basically based his entire report on the Palestinian side, and didn't check anything regarding Israeli reports. When you base yourself on one side more than the other, that's bias.[/quote] A blanket of criticism, is pretty hard to defend. Of course Goldstone based himself on one side more than the other. The Gaza war took place in Gaza, not Israel, so it's a logical assumption there will be more Palestinian eye-witnesses. Before you complain, much of the criticism for Hamas came from those eye-witnesses as well. (But maybe those should be discarded as well?) He did check Israeli reports by the way, he even accounted for some IDF soldiers as eye-witnesses. (concerning booby-trapped houses). Seriously BurnEmDown, from who or what organization will you consider criticism of Israel unbiased? I'm really curious. Because so far you have rejected a Jewish-Zionist lawyer, the UN, and the biggest human-rights organizations out there. Whose credible?

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22663820]A blanket of criticism, is pretty hard to defend. Of course Goldstone based himself on one side more than the other. The Gaza war took place in Gaza, not Israel, so it's a logical assumption there will be more Palestinian eye-witnesses. Before you complain, much of the criticism for Hamas came from those eye-witnesses as well. (But maybe those should be discarded as well?) He did check Israeli reports by the way, he even accounted for some IDF soldiers as eye-witnesses. (concerning booby-trapped houses). Seriously BurnEmDown, from who or what organization will you consider criticism of Israel unbiased? I'm really curious. Because so far you have rejected a Jewish-Zionist lawyer, the UN, and the biggest human-rights organizations out there. Whose credible?[/QUOTE] "The mission displayed double standards in acceptance of evidence: treating even photogaphic evidence presented by Israel as inherently untrustworthy, except when it could be used to condemn Israel, while uncritically accepting statements by Hamas; reinterpreting or dismissing self-incriminating statements by Hamas; and selectively quoting material from sources." [quote]Before you complain, much of the criticism for Hamas came from those eye-witnesses as well. (But maybe those should be discarded as well?)[/quote] If the report decided Hamas did illegal things based only on Palestinian eye-witnesses, then yes, that's wrong. Everyone deserves a fair trial and the Goldstone report can't just decide the Hamas did X and Y and it's illegal just because several people said so.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22665521]"The mission displayed double standards in acceptance of evidence: treating even photogaphic evidence presented by Israel as inherently untrustworthy, except when it could be used to condemn Israel, while uncritically accepting statements by Hamas; reinterpreting or dismissing self-incriminating statements by Hamas; and selectively quoting material from sources."[/quote] BurnEmDown, what did I say about blanket statements? This means nothing without proper references to back this up. Again this isn't "evidence", it's just an accusation. Seriously dig up this "Offical Israeli" report because I can't find it. It took me one google search to get all 575 pages of the Goldstone report, but I've still haven't found Israel's report after 20 minutes of searching. If they're going to condemn a report, they need to make their own findings public. The 20 or so "bulletpoints" you shown me are nothing but baseless accusations, show me evidence, show me references, and most of all find their full report. The only thing I found was a long rebuttal from Alan Dershowitz, which I'm sure we can both agree will be biased and unusable, since unlike Goldstone, Dershowitz was already accused of bias with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past. [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22665521] If the report decided Hamas did illegal things based only on Palestinian eye-witnesses, then yes, that's wrong. Everyone deserves a fair trial and the Goldstone report can't just decide the Hamas did X and Y and it's illegal just because several people said so.[/QUOTE] The report did not, remember me mentioning the report including eye-witnesses from IDF soldiers about the booby-trapped houses? Are you reading my posts anymore? I've came across that IDF eye-witness account only after 5 minutes of skimming the report. Also, you think the report is made up of only several eye-witness accounts? Can I ask that you have read the report? [QUOTE=Sporkfire;22663820] Seriously BurnEmDown, from who or what organization will you consider criticism of Israel unbiased? I'm really curious. Because so far you have rejected a Jewish-Zionist lawyer, the UN, and the biggest human-rights organizations out there. Whose credible?[/QUOTE] Please answer my question, because so far, Human rights groups, the UN, and Jewish lawyers who have affiliations with Zionism can't be used as sources (or so you said, correct?). What should I use in a future argument?

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22668498]BurnEmDown, what did I say about blanket statements? This means nothing without proper references to back this up. Again this isn't "evidence", it's just an accusation. Seriously dig up this "Offical Israeli" report because I can't find it. It took me one google search to get all 575 pages of the Goldstone report, but I've still haven't found Israel's report after 20 minutes of searching. If they're going to condemn a report, they need to make their own findings public. The 20 or so "bulletpoints" you shown me are nothing but baseless accusations, show me evidence, show me references, and most of all find their full report. The only thing I found was a long rebuttal from Alan Dershowitz, which I'm sure we can both agree will be biased and unusable, since unlike Goldstone, Dershowitz was already accused of bias with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past. [/quote] Don't know why it was so hard for you to find it, here it is: [url]http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/FC985702-61C4-41C9-8B72-E3876FEF0ACA/0/GoldstoneReportInitialResponse240909.pdf[/url] It's from the bottom of the "Preliminary analysis by Israeli government" part from this article: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_report#Israel[/url], the [98] link. [quote]The report did not, remember me mentioning the report including eye-witnesses from IDF soldiers about the booby-trapped houses? Are you reading my posts anymore? I've came across that IDF eye-witness account only after 5 minutes of skimming the report. Also, you think the report is made up of only several eye-witness accounts? Can I ask that you have read the report?[/quote] I didn't read the report, and I shouldn't be expected to do that, it's more than 500 pages long. I saw what you wrote about the IDF soldiers eye-witness accounts, but that's not what I'm complaining about (these accounts are obviously biased as well). My problem here is that the report didn't use Israeli photographic evidence, unless they could be used against Israel. [quote]Please answer my question, because so far, Human rights groups, the UN, and Jewish lawyers who have affiliations with Zionism can't be used as sources (or so you said, correct?). What should I use in a future argument?[/QUOTE] You are free to use whatever source you want, but I have the right to criticize it or present criticism that I found of it. If you don't want me to criticize your sources, make sure there aren't any reasonable criticisms against it. But you shouldn't be afraid of criticism, because if you post something and I criticize it, it should still help create a clearer image of the issue at hand.

[QUOTE=Billiam;22394184]What a bullshit comparison.[/QUOTE] Bullshit reasoning.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22669773]Don't know why it was so hard for you to find it, here it is: [url]http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/FC985702-61C4-41C9-8B72-E3876FEF0ACA/0/GoldstoneReportInitialResponse240909.pdf[/url] [/QUOTE] After reading the report, I would actually agree with a few things. Namely Christine Chinkin's bias (although her condemnations were far-spread), but the report like the bullet points, still makes big accusations that don't have much independent finding. They just expect you to take their word for it. [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22669773] I didn't read the report, and I shouldn't be expected to do that, it's more than 500 pages long. I saw what you wrote about the IDF soldiers eye-witness accounts, but that's not what I'm complaining about (these accounts are obviously biased as well). [/QUOTE] So how is an eye-witness confirmation from IDF soldiers about booby-traps biased against Israel? Did you just subconsciously disagree, without realizing that it was a case against Hamas? [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22669773] You are free to use whatever source you want, but I have the right to criticize it or present criticism that I found of it. If you don't want me to criticize your sources, make sure there aren't any reasonable criticisms against it. But you shouldn't be afraid of criticism, because if you post something and I criticize it, it should still help create a clearer image of the issue at hand.[/QUOTE] Burn, you really stress that don't you? But yet you still want me to sift through official Israeli reports? There are far more reasons to see your sources biased considering your government already has a proven history of lies. I'm concerned because quite frankly I'm running out of sources, all the while you still insist I use Israeli reports.. seriously even American reports would be a welcome change.. I've been actually fairly receptive to you Since you're so adamant about receiving non-biased sources, maybe testimonials from the self-proclaimed "World's most moral army" will suffice? [url]http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/[/url]

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22660204]Tore apart? His post had no point to it, all of it is mindless blabbering without saying anything.[/QUOTE] [quote]remember when the officers ordered the WP strike on that hospital? they got charged, investigated, etc. however they got a slap on the wrist. [/quote] not an example [quote]"He was one of several liberal judges who issued key rulings that undermined apartheid from within the system by tempering the worst effects of the country's racial laws."[/quote] not clarification with an actual source [quote] At least WAIT a bit before going against your fucking word. jesus fuck[/quote] AINT NUTHIN THERE LUIGI pointing out a contradiction [editline]06:52AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22669773]Don't know why it was so hard for you to find it, here it is: [url]http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/FC985702-61C4-41C9-8B72-E3876FEF0ACA/0/GoldstoneReportInitialResponse240909.pdf[/url] It's from the bottom of the "Preliminary analysis by Israeli government" part from this article: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_report#Israel[/url], the [98] link. I didn't read the report, and I shouldn't be expected to do that, it's more than 500 pages long. I saw what you wrote about the IDF soldiers eye-witness accounts, but that's not what I'm complaining about (these accounts are obviously biased as well). My problem here is that the report didn't use Israeli photographic evidence, unless they could be used against Israel. You are free to use whatever source you want, but I have the right to criticize it or present criticism that I found of it. If you don't want me to criticize your sources, make sure there aren't any reasonable criticisms against it. But you shouldn't be afraid of criticism, because if you post something and I criticize it, it should still help create a clearer image of the issue at hand.[/QUOTE] BUT BUT D: ISRAEL SAYS THEY DON'T LIKE IT must be true

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22672477]After reading the report, I would actually agree with a few things. Namely Christine Chinkin's bias (although her condemnations were far-spread), but the report like the bullet points, still makes big accusations that don't have much independent finding. They just expect you to take their word for it.[/quote] Israel's counter-report is basing itself mostly on Goldstone's report. You can see that there's these (¶ 1690(2)1) things. What you need to do is go to the Paragraph numbered, and you will see how it's related. Also, in Goldstone's report, there are also quite a number of things which aren't sourced, for example most paragraphs in the "Facutal Findings" section in page 121 and 122. And the parts that are sourced, are mostly giving news articles as sources, as if the report merely collected news articles and put them together to make a 500 page report (yes, I know that's not what happened). [quote]So how is an eye-witness confirmation from IDF soldiers about booby-traps biased against Israel? Did you just subconsciously disagree, without realizing that it was a case against Hamas?[/quote] What I meant was that they are obviously biased against the Hamas. For example we can't just take their word for it and condemn the Hamas purely and only based on their accounts, we need physical evidence as well. [quote]Burn, you really stress that don't you? But yet you still want me to sift through official Israeli reports? There are far more reasons to see your sources biased considering your government already has a proven history of lies. I'm concerned because quite frankly I'm running out of sources, all the while you still insist I use Israeli reports.. seriously even American reports would be a welcome change.. I've been actually fairly receptive to you[/quote] I don't expect you to go through all of Israel's counter-report. I myself have only read several sentences, maybe a paragraph here and there. I'm not telling you to use Israeli reports, I'm just using them myself when I feel the need to. (For example I won't use anything that's reported in [url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/[/url] but not reported in other news websites). [quote]Since you're so adamant about receiving non-biased sources, maybe testimonials from the self-proclaimed "World's most moral army" will suffice? [url]http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/[/url][/QUOTE] I'll look into that website but I gotta go now, I'll be back in a few hours. Edit: Well I looked into a few accounts, most of them don't really mean anything, like a soldier telling how he and his unit had to destroy beds or closets because the enemy might hide below them or behind them or whatever. Or a soldier saying that they attacked a Mosque because it was believed the Hamas was hiding weapons there, and then it turned out that there wasn't anything there.