Israel--current Events

As we've discussed before, I'd no more rely upon you (or your sources) for a lesson on the true nature of Islam than upon Goebbels for tutelage on the true nature of Judaism, for precisely the same reasons.

I'm just curious. For those who think that Israel is justified in their actions, why are they justified in killing all the civilians they have? What about the children?

I'd like to state right off the bat that I'm not asking these questions in a slanted way, nor am I trying to take a side with these questions. I haven't entered an opinion in this matter due to a lack of knowledge on the State of Israel or really what is going on.

however, if the numbers I've been reading on civilian deaths and child deaths are true, I am curious as to how these casualties are justifiable.

I didn't ask you to rely upon me for anything sir. But as suspected, all you have to reply with is venomous rhetoric. Thanks for revealing your only interest in the Islamic world.

Neither am I going to be lectured by you on "venomous rhetoric"....talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

CelticCoalition, I've definitely got an idea in answer to your question, but as you specifically addressed your question to "those who think that Israel is justified in their actions", I'll keep it to myself until asked.

Death Toll May Be Twice Official Figure

Let's just be honest for once Emmet, shall we? You cannot answer the questions because you know it will reveal the hatred of Islam you so vehemently defend. Using your same logic for name calling...you are a self-righteous hypocrite.

Let's just be honest for once Emmet, shall we? You cannot answer the questions because you know it will reveal the hatred of Islam you so vehemently defend. Using your same logic for name calling...you are a self-righteous hypocrite.

If I've sounded extream, well I think in some ways I have a right being that I have loved ones who have been there and lived through most of the ness over there. As Arabs, my wifes Mum and Dad went through hell in their early lives it it wasn't just Isreal that did it. Because they werem't Muslim they had to put up with hell in the refugee camps before finally settling is Jordan.

Let me tell you all this my father in law still owns land in Israel and would sell it in a secound. However he'd have to travel to Israel to complete the transaction. Here's the problem, he'd probably not get out alive! The Palistinians would make it a mission to kill him for selling the land to the as they say"rats".

You can give me an answer if you like. I don't mind

How about the Israeli children who were killed? They don't target civilians, however Hesbula places themselves around innocient civilians on purpose!

I didn't get to read all of it but it looks interesting.

You can answer some questions, but not others. Ok, I'll ask again, just for kicks. Do you know about all the violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah, or do you not? If you do, how would you defend Islam as being the "religion of peace?"

Here you go Emmet, one of your own spreading love and peace again. I trust you have no problem with the Associated Press as a source. Hmmmm?

I'm sure he was justified though, right? Probably Bush's fault.

I'd start off by saying again that the IDF is not only the fifth most powerful military in the world, but also one of the most technologically advanced, armed and equipped as they are by the United States. For them to claim that the massive civilian casualties are merely regrettable "collateral damage", merely unfortunate accidents of war, can only be interpreted one of two ways; A: they're grossly incompetent (as we all know, hardly likely), or B: they're intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.
There are only two rationalizations I can think of for this; A: Collective punishment; punishing the entire country of Lebanon for the behavior of Hezbollah. At the onset of the Israeli attack, an Israeli general was quoted as saying that they would "turn back the clock on Lebanon 20 years". Considering the shocking extent of civilian casualties and the destruction of such strategic military assets as dairy plants, lighthouses, cardboard box factories, Proctor & Gamble baby food warehouses, power plants, water treatment facilities, and every road wider than a goat path, not to mention block after block of residential apartment buildings in Beirut and Tyre, at least two hospitals, and the international airport (Hezbollah doesn't have any air assets), they're achieving that objective, in spades.
And/or, B: they're trying to break the will of the Lebanese people to fight back, kind of like Nazi Germany did so successfully with the Blitz of London and bombing of Stalingrad, and the US in North Vietnam and Iraq (how well is that "shock and awe" strategy working out for you, by the way?).
Collective punishment, the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and the targeting of military assets with a high probability of inflicting civilian casualties are all explicitly proscribed de jure war crimes pursuant to the Geneva Convention.

Miraculously, in spite of Israel's complete and unchallenged air supremacy, allowing FAC's to loiter over southern Lebanon all day long, and the limited range of the rockets bringing them well within the effective range of Israel's own MLRS's and 155mm guns, Hezbollah's Katyushas (a perfectly legitimate military target, and ostensibly the rationale for this bloodbath in the first place) still manage to lob 50-150 rockets into northern Israel every day, a rate of fire that's pretty much the same as when the Israeli bombing first began. I've got an idea about that, too; as long as Hezbollah keeps peppering the Israeli countryside with their antique peashooters, the Israeli people remain pissed off and enthusiastically supportive of the IDF in Lebanon (you've got to admit, 15 civilians killed by what; 1500 rockets? has got to make the Katyusha one of the most pathetically ineffective weapons ever devised; you're infinitely more likely to be hit by lightning than a Katyusha). Due to their minimal cost in lives versus the high propaganda value of leaving them relatively unscathed for the moment, I somehow I doubt that Katyusha launchers are very high on today's IDF to-do list.

I'm not Muslim.

I'm not Pakistani.

A new study conducted at Sonoma State University shows widespread bias in Associate Press (AP) news reports favoring US government positions.

On October 25, 2005 the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) posted to their website 44 autopsy reports, acquired from American military sources, covering the deaths of civilians who died while in US military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2004. The autopsy reports provided proof of widespread torture by US forces. A press release by ACLU announcing the deaths was immediately picked up by AP wire service making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest library data bases showed that at least 98 percent of the daily papers in the US did not to pick up the story, nor did AP ever conduct follow up coverage on the issue.

The Associated Press is a non-profit cooperative news wire service. The AP with 3,700 employees has 242 bureaus worldwide that deliver news reports 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to 121 countries in 5 languages including English, German, Dutch, French, and Spanish. In the US alone, AP reaches 1,700 daily, weekly, non-English, college newspapers, and 5,000 radio and television stations. AP reaches over a billion people every day via print, radio, or television.

Alison Weir, Joy Ellison, and Peter Weir of the organization If Americans Knew recently conducted research on the AP's reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The study was a statistical analysis of the AP newswire in the year 2004, looking comparatively at the numbers of Israeli and Palestinian deaths reported. In 2004 there were 141 reports of Israeli deaths in AP headlines and lead paragraphs, while in reality there were only 108 Israeli deaths. During this same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported by AP, while 821 Palestinians had actually been killed. The ratio of actual number of Israeli conflict deaths to Palestinian deaths in 2004 was 1:7, yet AP reported deaths of Israelis to Palestinians at a 2:1 ratio.

The same could be said of AP's reporting of children's deaths. Nine reports of Israeli children's deaths were reported by the AP in headlines and leading paragraphs in 2004, while eight actually occurred. Only 27 Palestinian children deaths were reported by AP when actually 179 children died. While there were 22 times more Palestinian children's deaths than Israeli children's deaths, the AP reported 113 percent of Israeli children's deaths and 15 percent of Palestinian children's deaths.

On February 29, 2004 AP widely reported that President Aristide was ousted by Haitian rebels and that the United States provided an escort to take him out of the country to a safe asylum. Within 24 hours an entirely different story emerged through independent radio. Instead of the US being the supportive facilitator of Aristide's safety, Pacifica Radio News reported that Aristide was actually kidnapped by US forces. AP quickly changed their story. On March 1, 2004 an AP report by Deb Riechman said, "White House officials said Aristide left willingly and that the United States aided his safe departure. But in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Aristide said: "No. I was forced to leave."

The last AP report of Aristide's claiming that he had been kidnapped by the US in a State Department coup was on June 27, 2004. Since then there have been 60 news articles by AP including Aristide's name. Of these stories none mentioned Aristide's claim that he was kidnapped by the United States military. None mention the US backing of the coup. AP's bias in favor of the State Department's version of the Aristide's removal seems to be a deliberate case of AP-sanctioned forgetting.

AP is a massive institutionalized bureaucracy that feeds news stories to nearly every newspaper and radio/TV station in the United States. They are so large that top-down control of single news stories is practically impossible. However, research clearly indicates a built-in bias favoring official US government positions. The American people absorb these biases and make political decisions on skewed understandings. Without media systems that provide fair, critical and accurate reporting, democracy faces a dismal future.


http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ap_bias.html

I'm an American taxpayer.

The research and development of the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon was funded entirely by my money.

The American military-industrial complex which supplies the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon is wholly subsidized by my money.

The weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon that were given to Israel were paid for with my money (every U.S. loan to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress. Between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and not a dime ever repaid).

Due to our firm commitment to tax relief for the needy rich, the U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation; we borrow the money we give to Israel. Since 1949 the interest on those loans has totaled 49.937 billion dollars of my money.

Israel can actually use U.S. foreign aid to purchase weapons. Therefore, the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon that Israel bought from the U.S. were, you guessed it; actually paid for with my money.

I have a right, too. Let's just say that as an American taxpayer (total since 1949; $133.132 billion dollars of my money!), I feel that I've a legitimate vested interest in the matter at hand.

Also as you've already alluded to, 9/11 demonstrated that our myopic and unqualified support of Israel can actually have some rather negative repercussions here at home as well.

So, Emmet, are then any news sources you find reliable that report things that don't support your positions? Believe me, I'm not a big fan of the media in generals, but where do you go for your news?