If Hezbollah lobs a missle that lands on a school, kills 30 Israeli kids, then says "it was a mistake" does that make it okay?
I see up to 30 children killed by an Israeli missle, a guide missle with pinpoint precision. I see Israel claim that it was a "mistake" with no explanation. I see Israel say they are not to blame for the deaths, even though it was a "mistake." Yes, I would like to see some evidence to support their claim... Surely it must be easy enough for Israel to demonstrate (proof) that they were knowingly targeting only Hezbollah..(we already have evidence of their targeting of a UN observation post in which unarmed observers were killed). If a drunk driver "mistakenly" slams into a car a school bus and kills 30 kids, and he says "It was a mistake, I didn't mean to kill them, they shouldn't have been in a bus on Saturday Night near the bar I drink at" I don't think the law would give his excuse much play...
I want to see a trial where all the evidence is presented. What would the charges be? the IDF didn't know if civilians were there or not, and in that situation, knowing that children may have been there...there is blame for the choice Israel made. Sorry but that's nonsense. No army knows for a fact whether there are civilians in the line of fire. While we all would like to live in a world without wars, realistically wars do happen and if armies were expected NOT to fire when there is a theoretical possiblity of hitting a civilian - they'd never be able to fire a single shot. In addition, Israel is ignoring calls from human rights organizations for at lease a temporary cease fire. They just acepted a 24(or 48) hour ceasefire People are seeing killing by Israel's Goliath, and this time they are siding with the Islamic David... People are idiots, what are you going to do about that? Sorry but people ignoring Beslan, Moscow Theater, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali and believing in the Islamic David are well-meaning idiots.
The Z post 2 above this one is a red herring My point is that if you make a charge, the onus is on you to prove the charge. The onus is not on others to PROVE THAT WHAT YOU SAID ISN'T TRUE. Your charge isn't true because OTHERS HAVEN'T PROVED IT'S NOT TRUE. You say the origin of life on earth is that magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality. This is not true because I cannot prove that it isn't true, except in your twisted immoral mind. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Israelis deliberately targeted civilians. That is a separate issue. My post is about your intellectual dishonesty. Given what you posted here http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=73865 your true nature, if it was in any doubt, has become frighteningly clear. Absolutely disgusting performance today, Z. Just disgusting.
I want to see a trial where all the evidence is presented. What would the charges be? Similar to those who killed while drunk driving, manslaughter. the IDF didn't know if civilians were there or not, and in that situation, knowing that children may have been there...there is blame for the choice Israel made. Sorry but that's nonsense. No army knows for a fact whether there are civilians in the line of fire. While we all would like to live in a world without wars, realistically wars do happen and if armies were expected NOT to fire when there is a theoretical possiblity of hitting a civilian - they'd never be able to fire a single shot. That is why there are war crimes trials, and investigations, to determine if the decisions made were reasonable. I doubt at this point that most would believe that Israel would thoroughly investigate their own mistakes. In addition, Israel is ignoring calls from human rights organizations for at lease a temporary cease fire. They just acepted a 24(or 48) hour ceasefire Only after the recent massacre and pressure from world wide public opinion. Good for them to listen to reason. People are seeing killing by Israel's Goliath, and this time they are siding with the Islamic David... People are idiots, what are you going to do about that? Sorry but people ignoring Beslan, Moscow Theater, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali and believing in the Islamic David are well-meaning idiots. Everybody who disagrees with Israel is an idiot? How simple minded....
They actually do but I am not aware of Israeli military installations firing at Hezbollah positions from the school yard, are you? And I swear to god if you ever show me an israeli tank firing at Hezbollah from a school yard, day care center or appartment building and then 30 israeli civilians get slaughtered - I will be the first to blame their death on the IDF.
We have seen 2 mistakes in the past several days...that we know of, both resulting in the deaths of innocents...by guided missiles with pinpoint precision instrumentation... That pattern deserves an explanation, beyond rationalization and self righteous justification.
I want to see a trial where all the evidence is presented. What would the charges be? Similar to those who killed while drunk driving, manslaughter. LOL, you want them sued and you have no clue what to charge them with. That is why there are war crimes trials, and investigations, to determine if the decisions made were reasonable. I doubt at this point that most would believe that Israel would thoroughly investigate their own mistakes. As I said I have no problem with that, let them investigate and prosecute all war crimes by all countries in chronological order. Or at the very least all sides involved in this war - Hezbollah, Lebanon, Hamas, Syria, Iran, the United Nations, the United States and Israel. Everybody who disagrees with Israel is an idiot? Strawman, I said people believing in the Islamic David are idiots.
Classic red herring. He even quotes the passage in which I point out that my argument has nothing to do with whether or not Israel deliberately taregted civilians or the explanations that may or may not be required for Israels's actions. Again, my comments pertain to your intellectual dishonesty in claiming that others must prove the negative; that is, that you can make a claim and that the onus is on others to prove that it is not true, and if they cannot do that, then what you say must be accepted as truth. This is the classic argument of those who build their arguments on articles of faith, and do not want the cold light of reason to shine into their filthy little holes.