• Evidence of Israel having nuclear weapons.
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22168081]When Israel took most of its land from the Arabs there were no "Palestinians", when it took the West Bank and Gaza there still were no "Palestinians", only a few years later the term was coined. Israel gave up the Gaza strip hoping it will bring peace and stop the rocket attacks against its southern borders, but they only intensified, why should Israel do the same with the West Bank if it can't know for sure it will bring peace? Deja-vu, you've already said this to which I've answered with this post, and you've yet to reply:[/QUOTE] ...So you say that a secondary source report is of higher standards than a primary? And even though this is how it works in a court of law, [b]legal matters that deal with Palestine and Israels conflict at a legal level goes to a different standard?[/b] AND I'M SUPPOSED TO REPLY TO SOMETHING WHEN YOU IGNORE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SOMETHING THAT SUITS YOU BETTER? Fuck yourself sir.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22168706]...So you say that a secondary source report is of higher standards than a primary? And even though this is how it works in a court of law, [B]legal matters that deal with Palestine and Israels conflict at a legal level goes to a different standard?[/B] AND I'M SUPPOSED TO REPLY TO SOMETHING WHEN YOU IGNORE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SOMETHING THAT SUITS YOU BETTER? Fuck yourself sir.[/QUOTE] Not only that but the Gonzaga report was written by a student, he thinks it’s as credible as HRW, lol.
What I'm saying is that they didn't find proof that Israel committed war crimes, all they did was find some things which don't disprove it, for example not finding bullet holes or other evidence of a fight in the area, I'm sure there are explanations as to why they didn't find them. Let's use a metaphor here: Jack murdered John, now the police are investigating the crime. John was murdered with a knife behind the bar, that's what they know for sure. They found out that Jack likes to go to that bar often, and that he has a knife collection and one is missing. Obviously this is suspicious, but nobody would say that Jack is the murderer and this is 100% sure, especially since the police couldn't prove that Jack was at the bar or in the area at the specific night John was murdered. (Just like how the IDF documents its actions and meeting where the officers make decisions, and when it commits a war crime or something then these documents can prove it. The HRW failed to provide documents supporting their accusation, while in other cases providing such documents is fairly easy).
Looks like America has another flashing neon sign saying "Invade me and steal my money to improve your economy that's more unbalanced than a methfiend on a unicycle!". [editline]05:04PM[/editline] :patriot:
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22176466]What I'm saying is that they didn't find proof that Israel committed war crimes, all they did was find some things which don't disprove it, for example not finding bullet holes or other evidence of a fight in the area, I'm sure there are explanations as to why they didn't find them. Let's use a metaphor here: Jack murdered John, now the police are investigating the crime. John was murdered with a knife behind the bar, that's what they know for sure. They found out that Jack likes to go to that bar often, and that he has a knife collection and one is missing. Obviously this is suspicious, but nobody would say that Jack is the murderer and this is 100% sure, especially since the police couldn't prove that Jack was at the bar or in the area at the specific night John was murdered. (Just like how the IDF documents its actions and meeting where the officers make decisions, and when it commits a war crime or something then these documents can prove it. The HRW failed to provide documents supporting their accusation, while in other cases providing such documents is fairly easy).[/QUOTE] HRW report = a forensic finding using actual searches, evidence finding techniques, and actually being there VS the gonzaga report. A report filed by a student, a nationalist like yourself, who based his report on the HRW report, and what he didn't like in it. I would like you to meet bias, a good friend of yours that you've never acknowledged.
Why do you two bother getting all uptight and brawling over the internet. This is seriously a waste of time.
This is not news.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22176629]HRW report = a forensic finding using actual searches, evidence finding techniques, and actually being there VS the gonzaga report. A report filed by a student, a nationalist like yourself, who based his report on the HRW report, and what he didn't like in it. I would like you to meet bias, a good friend of yours that you've never acknowledged.[/QUOTE] HRW report = an extremely biased report which is based on asking the Gazans for evidence, then looking a bit on the area of the bombings, then filling half of it with "oh look how much this guy is suffering, this obviously means Israel has committed war crimes". The Gonzaga report = filed by a successful (semi finalist in a writing contest) student from the Hofstra law university and was deemed worthy by the Gonaga Journal editors to not only be on their site, but be a featured article on the front page, who based his report on international laws and how the IDF acted according to them. You seem to think he based all of his report on the HRW's report, but I've told you several times already: he only mentions it a couple of times, and bases his report on international law. If the IDF was found guilty, it would just find out who amongst it's ranks was guilty and broke international law, and would bring them to court, just like it has done with the two officers who exceeded their authority regarding WP use and broke international law. There's no reason for me to defend a few officers who allegedly broke international law, if they truly did this.
Ok, I think I have figured out the basis for your argument against the Gonzaga report. Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to be about it. [quote]It was written by a student[/quote] Whoop de fucking doo, a legal student probably has more credability than a journalist anyway. [quote]It's based off second hand evidence[/quote] It's using the same evidence that the HRW report used, it isn't rendered invalid once someone else uses it. As long as they aren't saying "a friend of mine was there and he said this", it's still fine. [quote]Gonzaga isn't as credible as HRW[/quote]The Gonzaga report pokes holes in the accusations made by HRW, similar to how a defense attorney is allowed to rebut accusations. Saying it's less credible and disregarding points made is just being an ass. [quote]The Gonzaga report was filed by a biased nationalistic zionist who defends Israel blindly[/quote]Blatant Ad Hominem, you should feel ashamed. [quote]HRW is very credible[/quote]Obviously since they are so balanced, anyone who opposes them is a fanatic. HRW has just as much of an agenda as anyone else and gets copious "donations" from rich Anti-Israel Arabs. Just because they are international, non-profit and larger than other groups, doesn't mean they have any credability. [quote]HRW collected Forensic evidence.[/quote]Again, whoop de fucking doo. Doing a DNA test doesn't automatically convict someone of murder and witness testimonies and crime scene photographs don't automatically prove whatever bullshit conclusion you make.
As much as i support the use of nuclear weapons as a dick waving tactic, i dont support an already unstable nation selling weapons to another unstable nation, especially when South Africa was in no capacity to keep them.
Israel can suck a cock
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22168081]When Israel took most of its land from the Arabs there were no "Palestinians", when it took the West Bank and Gaza there still were no "Palestinians", only a few years later the term was coined. Israel gave up the Gaza strip hoping it will bring peace and stop the rocket attacks against its southern borders, but they only intensified, why should Israel do the same with the West Bank if it can't know for sure it will bring peace? [/QUOTE] The Gaza strip is shit. It's got no water, no fertile soil, and nothing to support the Palestinians. And Israel took their land and demolished their homes. There's no point in arguing with you. Everything everyone is saying about you is absolutely true.
What does it matter that the Gaza strip is shit?
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22179295]Israel can suck a cock[/QUOTE] This must be the smartest post in this thread!
Lol BurnEmDown is a joke. It's like trying to rationalise with a neo-nazi.
Funny, I think the same about you.
I thought it was pretty obvious Israel had nuclear weapons from ages ago. [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22181292]Funny, I think the same about you.[/QUOTE] :iceburn:
[QUOTE=capslock;22181316] :iceburn:[/QUOTE] Please, only use that when it really is an ice burn, I don't want that emote to lose its value.
To be honest, I wouldn't trust anyone with nuclear weapons. It's all gonna end badly, even on the offchance that nobody uses them.
[QUOTE=capslock;22181316]:iceburn:[/QUOTE] Lol no. I'm not promoting a violent ideology.
Yeah I didn't mean it as a burn, it's just that some people think that if another guy has a different opinion as them then he's just stupid or one-sided and will never budge. I did however budge on several occasions and I've brought one example already. They just think that because they can't convince me that I'm unconvince-able, but the truth is that their arguments are just weak. So maybe it was a semi-burn.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;22181557]Lol no. I'm not promoting a violent ideology.[/QUOTE] Nah man just some failing sarcasm of mine. He really shows how some people just get pulled with and refuses to look at it from the other side of situations.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22181583]Yeah I didn't mean it as a burn, it's just that some people think that if another guy has a different opinion as them then he's just stupid or one-sided and will never budge. I did however budge on several occasions and I've brought one example already. They just think that because they can't convince me that I'm unconvince-able, but the truth is that their arguments are just weak. So maybe it was a semi-burn.[/QUOTE] NoDachi [I]burned[/I] you. :smug:
[QUOTE=JDK721;22181678]NoDachi [I]burned[/I] you. :smug:[/QUOTE] He did [I]not[/I]. :smug:
Your arguments come down to that you don't see primary evidence to be worthy of anything in a legal matter, where as a second hand report is more valuable. Yes, the HRW has bias, however, they're also not able to be so biased in their decision and report unless it's backed up. And yes, calling the writer a zionist/nationalist is ad hominem, but does that change the fact he is one, and was in charge of writing a report that goes against all other evidence and supports his side with blatant patriotism? You would call someone defending a act of genocide of different people insane and ignore his points in a similar situation would you not? suddenly being a student in a law school changes that view does it?
I don't see how did you decide that this Mark Cantora guy is a Zionist or a nationalist, please explain. My arguments come down to that proving the IDF is guilty of war crimes can be done easily enough by providing related documents, while the HRW tried to provide these documents but failed.
good joke
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22182074]Your arguments come down to that you don't see primary evidence to be worthy of anything in a legal matter, where as a second hand report is more valuable. Yes, the HRW has bias, however, they're also not able to be so biased in their decision and report unless it's backed up. And yes, calling the writer a zionist/nationalist is ad hominem, but does that change the fact he is one, and was in charge of writing a report that goes against all other evidence and supports his side with blatant patriotism? You would call someone defending a act of genocide of different people insane and ignore his points in a similar situation would you not? suddenly being a student in a law school changes that view does it?[/QUOTE] For fucks sake. They are not "This happened" "NO this happened", they are two views on the same argument. HRW presents a case and shows evidence, Gonzaga cross examines this evidence, that's all there is to it. Two sides are shown and a conclusion is drawn, that's how it works. You keep raving on about this [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/primary-evidence]secondary and primary evidence[/url], why don't you look up [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/secondary-evidence]what they mean in a legal context[/url]? It's all primary evidence, it's all fine to use, HRW does not have any claim over it. The reason why Ad Hominems are considered logicaly falacies is because they dismiss arguments based on who is making them. If it's a stupid argument then it should be easy to disprove. If it's a good argument coming from a stupid person, it is not any less valid. If his arguments are of a blind patriotic manner, it should be easy to disprove them. If you just don't want to listen to their arguments because you know they are wrong before you have heard them, you would fit right in with creationists. The point of defending someone is not because you think they are right, it's to bring a more accurate conclusion. It doesn't matter if they commited petty theft or Omnicide, a two sided argument always brings a better conclusion. If a court of law decided to not include a defense attorney because they are biased, it would be a sham. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial]Even the Nazis got a trial and were let go if found innocent.[/url]
speaking of bias and warcrimes, I'm not sure if anything new has been found from it but, Burnemdown can you tell me of what warcrimes your government found, published, and charged it's soldiers after the 06' Lebannon war? I thought their findings were pretty amusing :3
I don't have much to say, it's kinda hard defending something if there aren't any real accusations against it. I do know that the Winograd Commission found that no war crimes have been committed, yet criticized the government and the IDF quite a lot: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winograd_Commission[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.