• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Palestinian MIlitants Attack Israeli Position Behind Green Line, Kidnap A Soldier

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
I realize this (the following) isn't an academic argument...

these are all pretty famous quotes.... note their agreement with the historical reality (ie they're not "just rhetoric")


[/SIZE][/FONT] "The mosque of al-Khalisa, a Palestinian village of 2,000 inhabitants that was ethnically cleansed by the Palmach on 11 May 1948. Today the mosque stands incongruously in the middle of the northern Jewish town of Kiryat Shemona converted into a public building with a plaque over the door declaring: “This building was renovated in memory of those Israelis who fell in battle to protect Israel’s independence”. (August 2004)"





edit: if thats not the systematic and planned elimination of a group of people...

i dont agree with the idea that defending against charges of genocide amounts to not caring about loss of arab life and/or supporting isreali actions.

you post some good points though these examples can be equally matched against quotes by prominent arab individuals and even groups (never mind entire nations) who say similar things about eliminating jews. and have tried at different points to inflict physical harm on the populace.

the issue is not the level of horror that these types of arguments evoke, but that the charge of genocide is barely been levied against arab states with the same ease its done against isreal.

because isreal is home to survivors and decendants of the holocaust, people seem to mistake the irony of the comparison for the validity of the comparison.

does that make sense, or have i fallen off the semantic cliff?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
oh shove it up your condescending ass
^^^ Ditto, the "Universe" reference is my playful way of saying that my comments aren't directed at a specific individual. So it isn't my fault if you took it too personally, or feel it's condescending. Your own behaviour could easily be considered "condescending".
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
I think the genocide thing is important because they are not merely murdering civilians, its matter not of civilians dying - a people being killed, to no longer exist as a people is a different and more grave question

thats part of why I think calling Israeli actions terrorism misses something bigger...



merely killing a thousand - or a million - civilians is not genocide
it could be part of genocide, or genocidal, or not



and Ditto Much, again "note their agreement with the historical reality (ie they're not "just rhetoric")" - like your quote, since Israeli Jews are not being elaborately replaced as a national entity, nor is the possibility of that even remote

whereas their replacement of another people is not just a fear - and proclomations of it not just a threa t- it is already largely been accomplished in fact - so incredibly blatantly I am comfortable using the word "fact" - and is ongoing





edit:
judge wopner said:
i dont agree with the idea that defending against charges of genocide amounts to not caring about loss of arab life and/or supporting isreali actions.

you post some good points though these examples can be equally matched against quotes by prominent arab individuals and even groups (never mind entire nations) who say similar things about eliminating jews. and have tried at different points to inflict physical harm on the populace.

the issue is not the level of horror that these types of arguments evoke, but that the charge of genocide is barely been levied against arab states with the same ease its done against isreal.

because isreal is home to survivors and decendants of the holocaust, people seem to mistake the irony of the comparison for the validity of the comparison.

does that make sense, or have i fallen off the semantic cliff?
I think what I say above this quote responds to this
 
Last edited:

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Yes, the fact that such threats are realizable changes the weight of criticism a bit...Ditto Much doesn't seem to appreciate this, though.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
A famous historian once said "It is impossible to defeat the historian who relies on quotations to make his argument" -- Or something like that.

yasser arafat said:
Since we cannot defeat Israel in war; we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.
Saying stuff doesn't make it true.

Edit: Such is the exact nature of propaganda, to proselytise beleifs that one may or may not even hold in reality, merely because they promote certain personal, political, ideological or 'public relations' and popularity-perpetuating goals
 
Last edited:

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
I think the genocide thing is important because they are not merely murdering civilians, its matter not of civilians dying - a people being killed, to no longer exist as a people is a different and more grave question

thats part of why I think calling Israeli actions terrorism misses something bigger...



merely killing a thousand - or a million - civilians is not genocide
it could be part of genocide, or genocidal, or not



and Ditto Much, again "note their agreement with the historical reality (ie they're not "just rhetoric")" - like your quote, since Israeli Jews are not being elaborately replaced as a national entity, nor is the possibility of that even remote

whereas their replacement of another people is not just a fear - and proclomations of it not just a threa t- it is already largely been accomplished in fact - so incredibly blatantly I am comfortable using the word "fact" - and is ongoing





edit:
I think what I say above this quote responds to this
I had some fun with this, for a change. Israel isn't merely a "terrorist" engaging in "terrorism", it's now "genocidal" too. Terrorism just simply isn't strong enough anymore; it seems to have outlived its shockingly ironic application to the state of Israel. I'm trying to think of what terms will be invented next for application to Israel, because one day even "genocide" will fail to describe the bottomless evil, the infinite depth of venomous hatred, the fanatical mass, homogenous, universal Israeli popular yearning for absolute and total eviceration of the entire Arab and Muslim populations along with their culture, history, language, names, territory, homes, children, fetuses everything...that Israel is guilty of.


We were talking about so-called "genocide" in Lebanon. There is no "elaborate" "replacement of the population" going on there. There is no Jewish settlement of Lebanon.

There is no genocide in Lebanon; to use the term there cheapens the whole concept. That's my personal opinion, which I have attempted to back up according to my own perspective and not insubstantial background knowledge, research, analysis and experience.

To each his own.
 
Last edited:

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
...and realized

perhaps the most tactically brilliant use of bold faced text ever.
;)


im surprised no one has mentioned the recent lebanese pledge to sent 15,000 troops into the south. do they actually have a viable force that can secure that large of a region if they never could before when hezbollah was controlling it?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
perhaps the most tactically brilliant use of bold faced text ever.
;)


im surprised no one has mentioned the recent lebanese pledge to sent 15,000 troops into the south. do they actually have a viable force that can secure that large of a region if they never could before when hezbollah was controlling it?
Ehud Olmert described the proposal as interesting, Hezbollah said they'd accept it.

I really want to launch into a thing about Israel then promptly committing genocide as per its nature, but...I won't :D

And, Keith, you've made errors before, but I've never pointed them out, cuz I think it's really fucking cheap. Besides, I think he was drawing attention not to the grammar, but to the implication--broadening what you said...and the promptly committing genocide. Fuck. Oops.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
I never said I haven't made grammatical errors, but rather, the first time I've been called out for it (incidentally, I have since realized that it wasn't a grammatical error at all... ;) ). Or maybe the second time. Allison did it to me once in the NC thread and it took all my constitution not to bomb her home as a consequence. I know what deafplayer was intending with his remarks in this case, though.

In any case, I think I should start fervourishly ridiculing anti-Israeli commentary without explicitly declaring legitimate support for Israel, thus leaving me free any potential retaliation, since I am above holding a position on the topic whatsoever.


edit: I also think that calling people out on grammar is perfectly acceptable, as long as you aren't using it as a means for undermining their argument or reducing the debate in general.
 
Last edited:

~atp~

TRIBE Member
From here on in, I'm not going to address anyone in this thread. You -- and by "you" I am referring to the public audience reading this post -- may now treat my posts as isolated commentary in a thread that I do not believe I can fairly engage with. Largely my own fault for being too cynical and apathetic about views that I do not believe hold merit, or for argumentation styles that are too hostile or patronizing to be of any utility (admittedly, some of that hostility and patronization was likely instigated, quite intentionally, by me).
 

derek

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Israel withdraws Venezuela envoy
Israel is withdrawing its ambassador to Venezuela as a row grows between the two countries over the war in Lebanon.

At the weekend President Hugo Chavez recalled his envoy to Israel and described the Jewish state's campaign in Lebanon as a "new genocide".

On Monday Israel said it would be flying its ambassador back for "consultations".

The BBC correspondent in Caracas says the row marks an all-time low in relations between the two governments.

Mr Chavez has railed against Israel in interviews and statements in recent days, describing its offensive in Lebanon as "genocide".

"Israel has gone mad," he said in a weekly broadcast on Sunday.

"It's attacking, doing the same thing to the Palestinian and Lebanese people that they have criticized - and with reason - the Holocaust. But this is a new Holocaust."

Venezuela's leading Jewish organisation has criticised government representatives and the government-backed media for making anti-Semitic statements.

'Wild slurs'

Mr Chavez was also highly critical of Israel last week during a two-day visit to Iran, a key sponsor of Lebanon's Hezbollah militia.

The Israeli foreign ministry said it was bringing the ambassador back temporarily "as an act of protest against the one-sided policy of the president of Venezuela and in light of his wild slurs against the state of Israel".

Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel was concerned that Mr Chavez had allied itself with "the most extreme elements in the region".

"We have a Venezuelan president who embraces the Iranian leader who just a couple of days ago called for Israel to be wiped off the map," said Mr Regev.

The BBC's Greg Morsbach in Caracas says Mr Chavez's stance has won him some admiration in the Arab world.

His fierce rhetoric is geared towards gaining support in countries marginalised by the US, particularly in the hope of securing support for Venezuela's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, our correspondent reports.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5254882.stm
---------------------


How is it that Chavez can say such completely dumb things. when the fuck did 1000 people become a damn genocide Mr Chavez.
it's called propaganda. as you've pointed out all sources use it to some degree, not just reuters.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
[...]then promptly committing genocide as per its nature, but...I won't :D

[...] I think he was drawing attention not to the grammar, but to the implication--broadening what you said...and the promptly committing genocide. Fuck. Oops.
Sorry, who's "cheapen"ing the word genocide?

When its applied to Israeli's systematic and planned destruction of a people it might as well be applied to..... Quebec?

As if clearing out the natives, as in North America - a non-mocking example of yours - isn't what happened in Israel/Palestine?


SellyCat said:
...was responded to by DP with...



Yeah, um, Israel doesn't collect any taxes from Lebanon or the Hezbollah. lol That's what the Lebanese government is for.
Um, yeah, it collects taxes from Israeli civilian property which is obviously not the 'perfectly legitimate target' that Ditto Much considers Lebanese civilians


SellyCat said:
And yes, Genocide refers to murder--only brand new conceptions of genocide include other, braoder, socio-economic and cultural features about "ethnic cleansing". It is precisely this kind of broadening of the term that makes it cheap and hollow, because you can apply it to anything.
:rolleyes: you should ask my sister about the documented high-level political (ie historical UN shit) history of "genocide", because this assertion of yours is simply uncontrovertially untrue

...okay <10 seconds of Wikipedia yields a few small parts of the history she would probably be excited to teach you about:
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 andcame into effect in January 1951.

***

Genocide
is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

***

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere or cideo - to massacre).

Lemkin said about the definition of genocide in its original adoption for international law at the Geneva Conventions:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[1]

Lemkin's original genocide definition was narrow, based mainly on the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, as it addressed only crimes against "national groups" rather than "groups" in general. At the same time, it was broad in that it included not only physical genocide, but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of the group.
edited for marginal increase in politeness
 
Last edited:

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets

Fliers admit aborting raids on civilian targets as concern grows over the reliability of intelligence

Inigo Gilmore at Hatzor Air Base, Israel
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer

At least two Israeli fighter pilots have deliberately missed civilian targets in Lebanon as disquiet grows in the military about flawed intelligence, The Observer has learnt. Sources say the pilots were worried that targets had been wrongly identified as Hizbollah facilities.

Voices expressing concern over the armed forces' failures are getting louder. One Israeli cabinet minister said last week: 'We gave the army so much money. Why are we getting these results?' Last week saw Hizbollah's guerrilla force, dismissed by senior Israeli military officials as 'ragtag', inflict further casualties on one of the world's most powerful armies in southern Lebanon. At least 12 elite troops, the equivalent of Britain's SAS, have already been killed, and by yesterday afternoon Israel's military death toll had climbed to 45.

As the bodies pile up, so the Israeli media has begun to turn, accusing the military of lacking the proper equipment, training and intelligence to fight a guerrilla war in Lebanon. Israel's Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, on a tour of the front lines, was confronted by troubled reserve soldiers who told him they lacked proper equipment and training.

Israel's chief of staff, Major-General Dan Halutz, had vowed to wipe out Hizbollah's missile threat within 10 days. These claims are now being mocked as rockets rain down on Israel's north with ever greater intensity, despite an intense and highly destructive air bombardment.

As one well-connected Israeli expert put it: 'If we have such good information in Lebanon, how come we still don't know the hideout of missiles and launchers?... If we don't know the location of their weapons, why should we know which house is a Hizbollah house?'

As international outrage over civilian deaths grows, the spotlight is increasingly turning on Israeli air operations. The Observer has learnt that one senior commander who has been involved in the air attacks in Lebanon has already raised concerns that some of the air force's actions might be considered 'war crimes'.

Yonatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from reserve duty after signing a 'refusenik' letter in 2004, said he had spoken with Israeli F-16 pilots in recent days and learnt that some had aborted missions because of concerns about the reliability of intelligence information. According to Shapiro, some pilots justified aborting missions out of 'common sense' and in the context of the Israeli Defence Force's moral code of conduct, which says every effort should be made to avoiding harming civilians.

Shapiro said: 'Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of targets because they're afraid people will be there, and they don't trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.'

He added: 'One pilot told me he was asked to hit a house on a hill, which was supposed to be a place from where Hizbollah was launching Katyusha missiles. But he was afraid civilians were in the house, so he shot next to the house ...

'Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.'

So far none of the pilots has publicly refused to fly missions but some are wobbling, according to Shapiro. He said: 'Their target could be a house firing a cannon at Israel and it could be a house full of children, so it's a real dilemma; it's not black and white. But ... I'm calling on them to refuse, in order save our country from self-destruction.'

Meron Rappoport, a former editor at the Israeli daily Haaretz and military analyst, criticised the air force's methods for selecting targets: 'The impression is that information is sometimes lacking. One squadron leader admitted the evidence used to determine attacks on cars is sometimes circumstantial - meaning that if people are in an area after Israeli forces warned them to leave, the assumption is that those left behind must be linked to Hizbollah ... This is problematic, as aid agencies have said many people did not leave ... because they could not, or it was unsafe to travel on the roads thanks to Israel's aerial bombardment.'

These revelations raise further serious questions about the airstrike in Qana last Sunday that left dozens dead, which continues to arouse international outrage. From the outset, the Israeli military's version of events has been shrouded in ambiguity, with the army releasing a video it claims shows Katyusha rockets being fired from Qana, even though the video was dated two days earlier, and claiming that more than 150 rockets had been fired from the location.

Some IDF officials have continued to refer vaguely to Katyushas being launched 'near houses' in the village and to non-specific 'terrorist activity' inside the targeted building. In a statement on Thursday, the IDF said it the air force did not know there were civilians in what they believed was an empty building, yet paradoxically blamed Hizbollah for using those killed as 'human shields'.

Human rights groups have attacked the findings as illogical. Amnesty International described the investigation as a 'whitewash', saying Israeli intelligence must have been aware of the civilians'.

One Israeli commander from a different squadron called the Qana bombing a 'mistake' and was unable to explain the apparent contradiction in the IDF's position, although he insisted there would have been no deliberate targeting of civilians. He said he had seen the video of the attack, and admitted: 'Generally they [Hizbollah] are using human shields ... That specific building - I don't know the reason it was chosen as a target.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
ugh...

AND WITH GREAT FERVOUR, DID ALLAH RAIN DOWN TERRRRIBLE FURY AND VENGEANCE UPON THE ONE KNOWN AS VINCENT VEGA FOR COMMITTING ACTS OF ATTRITION AGAINST HIS DISCIPLE. THOSE WHO ARE SO FEVERISHLY DESPERATE TO CONDEMN THE ONE KNOWN AS ~ATP~ WILL SUFFER A SIMILAR FATE...
 

Vincent Vega

TRIBE Member
Then let it be written that a precision (mis)guided missile shall strike down with unparalleled ferocity upon the head of the one known as ~atp~ should he ever again attempt to worm his way out of a clear error by fraudulently mischaracterizing his verbiage as an intentional flight of verbal fancy when it was otherwise patently clear that said ~atp~ had obviously fabricated the word!!!!



*cue hellfire*
 
Top