US Family seeks $324,000 from Israel for murder of Rachel Corrie - Polidicks

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20830759]Uh, I may be wrong, but those look a lot like flares. notice they are only using them at night (or at twilight times). They are probably dropping mass amounts of flares to light up the area on the ground.[/QUOTE] Its white phosphorous.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;20831643] No, that's not my excuse. If you would think logically (which you don't, from what I'm seeing), it would be obvious for you that the IDF won't never attack a UN school on purpose without a proper reasons. So we could easily figure out two options: a) there was actually some HAMAS fighters, a hideout, or whatever near the school b) the shot wasn't accurate and they missed their real target.[/QUOTE] All right, listen. Your posts are absolute bullshit and inconsistent to the highest degree, here's why. You're post attitude is pretty much "IDF is 100% right, perfectly justifiable, and the UN is wrong about [I]everything[/I]" Your refusal to acknowledge the UN is right and the IDF is wrong is quite disturbing actually. The United Nations is not a "corrupt" organization, I would take the UN's word over IDFs any-day. [quote]b) the shot wasn't accurate and they missed their real target.[/quote]Nope, Israel said themselves they bombed the school on purpose and stated Hamas was there, which the United Nations replied saying "No." Kinda frightening you would believe the UN is bullshitting about everything. [editline]03:41PM[/editline] Also, the Jerusalem Post reported on May 30, 2007, a letter sent by Israel's former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu - one of the most senior theocrats in Israel- pontificating "[B]that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza...[/B]" It reportedly went on to say that "According to Jewish war ethics, an entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals." Mordechai's son Shmuel Eliyahu, the chief rabbi of Safad, elaborated on his father's comments, stating: "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand." He added, "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop." Also, On February 29, 2008, BBC reported that Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai avowed in an Israeli army radio "the Palestinians will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." Shoah is a Hebrew word for the Holocaust. And I always thought the 'Holocaust' was a unique historical event of crimes against Jews perpetrated by the Nazi philosophy of hate. Not anymore, as we bear witness to a Gaza 'Shoah' rationalized by yet another loathed philosophy! [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2868601720080229[/URL] [URL]http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=63137[/URL]

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;20830686]I don't understand this. Stop what? And can you please quote whatever you want to say from that document.[/QUOTE] :downs: [quote]As the Security Council was preparing to resume its deliberations on the ongoing Gaza crisis, representatives of several humanitarian and human rights organizations called for immediate action to stop the fighting in Gaza and ensure respect for international law, full access to the population in need and lifting of the Israeli-imposed blockade this morning. Speaking from New York, Gaza and Jerusalem at a Headquarters press conference were: Brenden Cox, Executive Director of Crisis Action; Michael Bailey, OXFAM International Spokesperson based in Jerusalem; Yazdan al Amawi, Team Leader, CARE; Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch; and Allyn Dhynes, Advocacy/Communications Manager of World Vision Jerusalem/West Bank/Gaza. Opening the briefing, Mr. Cox said the purpose of the press conference was to stress the need for the Security Council to take action on the crisis, both from the humanitarian and human rights perspectives. Presenting a detailed update, Mr. Al Amawi said that the humanitarian situation was very dire on the twelfth day of air strikes and ground operations by Israel, which had followed an 18-month blockade. Some 218 children and 85 women were among the 660 casualties of the conflict. “Women are really in a panic and we are all the time trying to establish any kind of humanitarian corridor to supply the people with the needed supplies and food.” Various humanitarian organizations and international agencies on the ground had faced many challenges in their efforts to alleviate the suffering of the population, including displaced and injured people, he continued. While some supplies had been able to reach the Gaza Strip, the humanitarian situation was seriously exacerbated by the lack of equipment, medical supplies, access and safety. The lack of electricity, depleting food supplies and water shortages also represented serious problems. Speaking from Jerusalem, Mr. Bailey of OXFAM added that since 20 June 2007, the Israeli authorities had only allowed a minimum of humanitarian aid into Gaza. As a result of the blockade, about 70,000 jobs had disappeared, leading to the freezing of the economy, closure of some 95 per cent of the factories and a 50 per cent unemployment rate. Every family in Gaza was hit by poverty, and some 80 per cent of them were dependent on food aid. As if it were not enough that 1.5 million people were being collectively punished for something they simply could not control -- Palestinian factions firing rockets at Israeli cities on the other side of the Gazan border -- the current “onslaught” had made the situation even more serious. However, the blockade and the weakening of the population had not achieved any of the stated aims of removing Hamas from control of Gaza or, indeed, impeding the rocket fire. “When the ceasefire is achieved ‑- and we pray that it be today or tomorrow ‑- we need to see also a change in the policy and a lifting of the blockade”, he insisted, “because otherwise, we would just return the people of Gaza back into the situation of isolated dependency they have been in for the last 18 months.” Focusing on the legal aspects of the conflict, Ms. Whitson of Human Rights Watch said that the closure of Gaza represented collective punishment, which was unlawful under international humanitarian law. Under international law, Gaza remained occupied territory, where the occupying forces, Israel, had the primary responsibility for providing food and medicine and securing the welfare of the population. Clearly, Israel was failing in its legal obligation. To that end, Egypt was complicit in the collective punishment of the Gaza population, enforcing the closure of the borders on its side. As for the recent fighting, Gaza was densely populated, and artillery attacks and aerial bombardments were not suitable there. Since the recent ground incursion, the death toll had nearly doubled, with some 40 per cent of the casualties being civilians, according to the most recent estimates. Regarding yesterday’s attack on a United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) school, she said that it was an example of civilians being exposed to great harm. Of course, the Israelis had said that there had been artillery fire from the vicinity of the school, but Human Rights Watch had spoken to witnesses on the ground, as well as UNRWA representatives, who had said that was not the case. Further, initially, Israel had focused its attacks on the police stations in Gaza. However, police were not combatants and could not represent legitimate targets, unless actively engaged in hostilities. It was Israel’s burden of proof to show that the police they had targeted were, indeed, Hamas militants. Instead, it appeared that Israel had targeted the police stations “on a blanket basis”. Israel had also made clear that all Hamas entities, affiliates and sympathizers were subject to attack, she continued. In that regard, it was important to note that only combatants who were actively engaged in fighting were legitimate subjects of attack. Thus, a Hamas official at the Ministry of Health was not a legitimate target, and neither was a Hamas media broadcasting station. Right now, all the international community had statements from Israeli officials that all they were doing was retaliating against Hamas rocket fire or attacks on their troops. Stressing the need to verify those claims, she said that pressure should be brought on Israel to allow access for those in a position to make an independent assessment of the situation on the ground. To see whether the rules of war were being respected, independent monitors and journalists should be allowed in Gaza. Responding to a question, she said that Human Rights Watch was calling for respect for international humanitarian law. With regard to Hamas, that meant containing rocket attacks that were indiscriminate or targeted civilians. With regard to Israel, it meant cessation of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas. Her organization also called for a Security Council-led international investigation into the violation of the rules of war, as well as recommendations for holding those responsible for such violations accountable. “Without a ceasefire and full opening of the borders to let the humanitarian supplies to flow into Gaza, we will witness a humanitarian catastrophe, on top of the high levels of death and injury caused directly by the violence,” said Mr. Dhynes of World Vision. Children were the first victims, who needed the attention and protection of the international community. He urged the Security Council and Quartet to work tirelessly to develop a lasting ceasefire plan that could be implemented, monitored and supported. In the absence of such a joint agreement, he called on both sides to agree to a pause in the fighting, so that emergency medical supplies and other essential goods could be transported to Gaza. The international community and parties to the conflict should take seriously the rights of children and civilians to flee the conflict zones. He urged the Council to include the provisions to protect the rights of children in its resolution. While welcoming the three-hour daily ceasefire, he also insisted that only a full ceasefire would allow for the crisis to be fully addressed. Responding to several questions in that regard, Mr. Al Amawi said that, while today’s three-hour cessation of fire had allowed humanitarian organizations to deliver “some more aid” to the needy people, the measure was certainly not adequate to respond to the needs of the ground. There had also been concerns about “the seriousness of this cessation”. Mr. Bailey added that he did not want the cessation to become a distraction from the need to achieve a complete ceasefire and allow proper humanitarian access to all the people in need. Asked how civilians were identified in such a conflict, Ms. Whitson said that, while women and children under the age of 10 were generally considered civilians, in many cases witness information was sought to confirm that the casualties were not combatants. The task of identification was made easier by the fact that, in most cases, militants did not try to hide their participation in such organizations as Hamas. It was a point of pride, and militants were usually buried with special grave markings identifying them as martyrs. It was difficult, however, to determine if a person had died while engaged in fighting. To another question, Mr. Cox said that some 20 to 30 aid agencies and other organizations had called on the European Union today to reconsider its association agreement with Israel, which was currently under negotiation. OXFAM’s Mr. Bailey added that the rationale behind that call was that it would be inconsistent for the European Union, which held human rights as an inviolable principle of all its agreements, to be in negotiations with Israel at a time when so much of its activities were “entirely inconsistent with the understanding of international humanitarian law and the application of human rights to civilians”.[/quote]

[url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html[/url] hey guy with a long name who's defending genocidal cunts look the UN isn't working for Hamas, are they?

I like the dual rationale--it was an accident! AND it was an enemy school! The US military could use some pointers from the IDF on how to miss your target and accidentally hit an entirely different one. It could revolutionize warfare!

we'll teach them schools to hate jews

Well I guess this discussion is hopeless as the mods don't care when people are flaming other people with different opinions, also, some of you seem to make assumptions, and then deny my assumptions, which makes you hypocrites. So I'm out of here, I can only wish best of luck in respecting others opinions.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;20832112]Well I guess this discussion is hopeless as the mods don't care when people are flaming other people with different opinions, also, some of you seem to make assumptions, and then deny my assumptions, which makes you hypocrites. So I'm out of here, I can only wish best of luck in respecting others opinions.[/QUOTE] I was actually looking forward to see you attempt to refute my post, since Israel itself admitted "there is nothing wrong with killing civilians; whole city must pay for one guys actions" But all right, use lack of moderation and denial of assumptions as an excuse. I could care less. It just shows you are weak at arguing or defending your claims. You failed to provide sources for your assumptions, I did.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;20832112]Well I guess this discussion is hopeless as the mods don't care when people are flaming other people with different opinions, also, some of you seem to make assumptions, and then deny my assumptions, which makes you hypocrites. So I'm out of here, I can only wish best of luck in respecting others opinions.[/QUOTE] thanks for addressing the points and running away because people insulted you. you're real mature

Stop getting pissy over insults, it happens anytime there is a real debate. Instead of giving up and taking off, you should ignore it and continue to refute, since that is what matters. If you're in a better position anyway you'll make the other guy look like an idiot.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;20832112]Well I guess this discussion is hopeless as the mods don't care when people are flaming other people with different opinions[/QUOTE] My job is to facilitate discussion, not to ban indiscriminately.

besides, it was reasonable insults i called you ignorant. and sparky, me saying "you don't know what you're talking about" etc is not flaming. half the shit you quoted wasn't flaming. [editline]04:07PM[/editline] being ignant and naive is the truth, not an insult

Not seeing her is not a valid excuse, as the driver of a vehicle you are meant to be aware of your surroundings, running people over and saying you did not see them should let you off.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B][QUOTE=Trotsky]just a friendly reminder, you missed this [QUOTE=Trotsky;20831977][url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html[/url] hey guy with a long name who's defending genocidal cunts look the UN isn't working for Hamas, are they?[/QUOTE] :)[/QUOTE] Can't be arsed to respond to this, I don't really care what you say because you're exactly the same as a typical Christian - deny anything that he doesn't like he seems wrong to him.[/QUOTE] haha

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;20832112] So I'm out of here, I can only wish best of luck in respecting others opinions.[/QUOTE] We won't respect opinions if they're hateful, ignorant, ill informed, and just plain asinine.

[QUOTE=Trotsky;20828618] you fucking scumbag [/QUOTE] Surely this deserves a ban for flaming. This guy's ridiculously aggressive declarations are getting on my nerves.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;20848255]Surely this deserves a ban for flaming. This guy's ridiculously aggressive declarations are getting on my nerves.[/QUOTE] Such statements happen in every heated debate. Don't tell me he went out of his way to insult him. His flame wasen't spontaneous, he called him a scumbag for his sick posts, then Trotsky backed up his claim. [QUOTE=Trotsky;20828618]I like how you pull statistics out of your ass yeah, and food, water, electricity, gas and communications have been blocked the people live in constant fucking fear and oppression and you make up statistics? [editline]06:46AM[/editline] you fucking scumbag i'd like for you to live in Gaza for a fucking day, and see if the people there are living luxuriously for your fucking fake stats.[/QUOTE] Full quote, learn to stop taking stuff out of context. [editline]09:28AM[/editline] [QUOTE=kellybear;20815574]you're mindnumbingly stupid [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - TH89))[/highlight][/QUOTE] ^ That's a flame.

Regardless of the context, it's still unnecessary and bullyish. While this may seem a new phenomenon to some, it IS possible to have a debate without idiotic insults and name-calling. That's not the sign of a heated debate - that's the sign of a lack of intelligence.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;20848549]Regardless of the context, it's still unnecessary and bullyish. While this may seem a new phenomenon to some, it IS possible to have a debate without idiotic insults and name-calling. That's not the sign of a heated debate - that's the sign of a lack of intelligence.[/QUOTE] According to [URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scumbag[/URL] Scumbag means: [B]a mean, despicable person. [/B] Its not that of an insult.

How is being named a "mean, despicable" person not insulting?

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;20848639]How is being named a "mean, despicable" person not insulting?[/QUOTE] If you said "The apartheid wall is good because it protects innocent Israelis, while leaving the Gazans access to no resources and living in slums/shit hole. Its a perfect solution!" You would be insulted if someone called you a "mean person" for saying that? Relevant comic. [IMG]http://files.myopera.com/ashja1/blog/gaza_by_latuff.jpg[/IMG]

Don't try and change the subject. This isn't about what so-and-so said; this is about the subsequent reaction, which is unacceptable.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;20848752]Don't try and change the subject. This isn't about what so-and-so said; this is about the subsequent reaction, which is unacceptable.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=20848355&postcount=137[/url]

Spare me - what's your point?

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;20848863]Spare me - what's your point?[/QUOTE] That calling someone a "mean person" is not flaming or a bannable offense.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20830759]Uh, I may be wrong, but those look a lot like flares. notice they are only using them at night (or at twilight times). They are probably dropping mass amounts of flares to light up the area on the ground.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Conscript;20831875]Its white phosphorous.[/QUOTE] Which I'm pretty certain is a banned weapon. [QUOTE]Or we could go with the logical assumption and assume that perhaps the driver [I]could not see[/I] the person he was running over. Nobody seems to take into account the driver's perspective. Since it was Israeli, Israel is [I]clearly[/I] at fault...[/QUOTE] So if he couldn't see her we can reasonably assume that he could not hear her bloodcurdling scream as she was slowly crushed to death by a military-grade bulldozer? He also at no point was informed by any of his comrades standing around that there was in fact an unarmed civilian in the way of his dozer and that he probably should not just drive on through? The only possible way that the driver didn't know she was there is if he was deaf, dumb and blind.

[QUOTE=starpluck;20848978]That calling someone a "mean person" is not flaming or a bannable offense.[/QUOTE] It was worded "fucking scumbag", not "mean person". Whether they mean the same thing or not is irrelevant - both are insults, both are stupid, and both are flames.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;20849109]It was worded "fucking scumbag", not "mean person". Whether they mean the same thing or not is irrelevant - both are insults, both are stupid, and both are flames.[/QUOTE] I disagree. But the judgment has already been made, out of all the moderators, none banned him. Its not a flame. [editline]11:14AM[/editline] [QUOTE=A.C.I.D;20849070]Which I'm pretty certain is a banned weapon. [/QUOTE] Its banned under international law. More specifically, using it in civilian populated areas. Gaza is extremely dense. Israel never listens to international law though. [editline]11:14AM[/editline] Not worthy of a "forum reply" [quote=Dr_Funk]It's a flame. The fact that Trostky hasn't been banned doesn't make it any less of a flame, or any worth a ban. [/quote]kk

It's a flame. The fact that Trostky hasn't been banned doesn't make it any less of a flame, or any worth a ban.

[QUOTE=starpluck;20848679]If you said "The apartheid wall is good because it protects innocent Israelis, while leaving the Gazans access to no resources and living in slums/shit hole. Its a perfect solution!" You would be insulted if someone called you a "mean person" for saying that? Relevant comic. [IMG]http://files.myopera.com/ashja1/blog/gaza_by_latuff.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Latuff's comics are good.