Gaza Beach Shelling

[civ2]

Sahkuhnder
ANY country was uninhabitated SOME time ago.
It doesn't matter which theory of human appearance we'll use - in all versions they first appeared somewhere and not all-over the globe.
Therefore it's only a matter of how much time do we take in consideration.

The original population of Iceland was of Nordic and Celtic origin. This is evident by literary evidence from the settlement period as well as from later scientific studies such as blood type and genetic analysis. One such genetics study has indicated that the majority of the male settlers were of Nordic origin while the majority of the women were of Celtic origin (Am. J. Hum. Genet, 2001). The modern population of Iceland is often described as a "homogeneous mixture of descendants of Norse and Celts" (The CIA World Factbook) but several history scholars reject the alleged homogeneity as a myth that fails to take into account the fact that Iceland was never isolated from the rest of Europe and actually has had a lot of contact with traders and fishermen from many nations through the ages.

In 2004, 20,669 people (7% of the total population) who were living in Iceland had been born abroad, including children of Icelandic parents living abroad. 10,636 people (3.6% of the total population) had foreign citizenship. The most populous nationalities are Polish (1903), Danish (890), ex-Yugoslavians (670), Filipinos (647) and Germans (540).

So whom would you call Icelander?

Anyways - ONE example is way too little to be a "law".
And don't forget the vast difference in geografical situation between Iceland and Israel - the latter being basically in the center of economical world.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ civ2 -

Asked and answered already. A Icelander is a citizen of the independent nation of Iceland.

...There are no Iceland 'natives' in the traditional sense.

Now let's stop the threadjack with your continued ridiculous questions. Read the wiki for yourself because if you can't understand what "uninhabited by humans" and "settled by immigrants" means then I can't help you any further.

 

[civ2]

Sahkuhnder
Do you ever read full posts?

 

[FeelGood]

You missed my point. They (BBC and co) are eager to place pallywood-staged videos without as much as doubt of them on front pages. The "shock" of Israeli atrocities runs around the globe. Terrorists start massive bombardments using this rubbish as excuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5079464.stm

An article from BBC about this "Pallywood". Read it if you care. Still, people have doubt about the the Israel investigation. I too feel skeptical on the report. It is not independant and everything can happen. An investigation by the UN would be a good choice. But, in the end if this is really "Pallywood", I too will be surprised since the reality about Israel violence is far far worse than that.

http://www.inminds.co.uk/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html

This is the eyewitness account on the Sabra & Shatilla massacre. After reading this, I just don`t understand why you said like you`re the victim of Palestinians terrorists. Maybe because you`re good at playing the victim. Palestine is seen as terrorist while Israel is the victim. Hah...good. I feel pity for you. May god "save"you from this predicament that you yourself choose.

I think Israel does may be a victim; the victim of its own policies and leaders. Yes, I know there`s a good number of Isrelists who love peace but this will do nothing if the policies and leaders are the same (type). If we see Palestinians choose the "terrorist" group Hamas, then what`s the different when Israel choose Ariel Sharon ?

 

[Leha]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5079464.stm

An article from BBC about this "Pallywood". Read it if you care. Still, people have doubt about the the Israel investigation. I too feel skeptical on the report. It is not independant and everything can happen. An investigation by the UN would be a good choice. But, in the end if this is really "Pallywood", I too will be surprised since the reality about Israel violence is far far worse than that.?

Please reread this thread and links I've posted. BBC link you bring here says nothing about Pallywood. Pallywood, if you are not presented to concept, is responsible for Al-Durra staged footage, which is proved to be false long time ago.
Please, if you want debate in correct manner, name details you are sceptical about. I have no time nor special urge to repost all the links and thoughts I posted earlier exclusively for you. So for startes: do you see crater of about 4 feet depth on the "tragedy" pictures and videos? If you see please show me where it is. (I don't mention here "initial" gunboat version with 76mm, which was easily debunked and palestinian side quickly switched to 155mm)

http://www.inminds.co.uk/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html

This is the eyewitness account on the Sabra & Shatilla massacre. After reading this, I just don`t understand why you said like you`re the victim of Palestinians terrorists. Maybe because you`re good at playing the victim. Palestine is seen as terrorist while Israel is the victim. Hah...good. I feel pity for you. May god "save"you from this predicament that you yourself choose.

I think Israel does may be a victim; the victim of its own policies and leaders. Yes, I know there`s a good number of Isrelists who love peace but this will do nothing if the policies and leaders are the same (type). If we see Palestinians choose the "terrorist" group Hamas, then what`s the different when Israel choose Ariel Sharon ?

This link you posted isn't fair. I'll explain you why. It is link from web site with strong anti-israeli bias. When you debate with someone, (it is called opponent, so further I will use word opponent), you are required to bring neutral sources, otherwise your sources don't count. You don't want me to post here links to anti-palestinian sites, do you?
(By the way, I think reducing reading from similar sites may seriously improve your opinion on Israel.)

Further, why am I supposed to believe to eyewitness? There were plenty of eyewitnesses when Al-Durra was "killed" by Israelis. But there were some problems with footage and people who didn't want to be lied to proved the whole thing is shameless lie, exploiting basical human feelings like compassion. Exactly as in Gaza beach accident.

I'll leave alone your anti-israel rethorics, because it is very clear you have very limited knowledge of the topic. Standart anti-israeli cliche's don't impress me very much.

Edit: Oh, and please stay on topic. If you want to discuss something else, you are welcome to open new topic.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe
A very good answer to your (and similar) "disagrrements" about the Land:
The word Torah is similar to horaa meaning teaching.
Which means that the basis of Torah is to teach us something.
Then why does Torah begins not with the laws for Jews (the first of which can be found much towards middle of the Torah) but rather with the Creation and a long list of who-lived-where-and-when.
Most of the event prior to Avraham (at least) are not "important" for Jews (aren't conncted with them) - then why it is so?
One of the greatest Jewish scholars (Rashi - lived almost 1000 years ago) explains:
"This was done so whenever Gentiles will object to Jews' claim for the Holy Land they would be answered - God created the entire world - He first gave the Land to Cnaanites - but then He decided to give it to the Jews - and this time forever (as He promised that Himself)."
That's the answer.

Now if we look "in a modern way of view" - basically any country was made on others' lands (name one that didn't!).
The wars were made throughout the history and nobody can claim their lands was always theirs - since it's not true.
Again - name ONE country that was there was more than 3000 years.
(If you mention China - it's not that clear since "who ARE Chinese?" - there are many small nations mixed into a big one - much like USA but closer in relationships. But even if China would be an example - name ANOTHER!)

boarder
The very idea of the state of Palestine is ridiculous for me - and I'm NOT joking...
(I have the right to have a political view - I don't tell anyone to do anything though.)

Religous claims to land will never get aproval from anyone because there are equally strong counter claims(usually by Islamics) And they are based on interpritation of God not actual knowledge so neither side has any leg to stand on; not that I think that the Israelis don't have a right to that land, it's too late now to start arguing about what if they actually introduced a fair division of the land, so we're stuck with an unfair treaty that turfed out the majority population, even if we do understand the reasons behind it,it was a badly thought out proposal.

I see no reason to base your claim on religion, it's not a valid legal argument and it carries no weight with the multi crede UN. Stick to making assertions based on actual real world knowledge and you can't go wrong, claim that Moses was divinely authorised to take by force the promised land and you'll find little agreement, especially when your initial assertions of being the first are erroneous.

 

[Mr. Do]

You missed my point. They (BBC and co) are eager to place pallywood-staged videos without as much as doubt of them on front pages. The "shock" of Israeli atrocities runs around the globe. Terrorists start massive bombardments using this rubbish as excuse.

Don't just say, "you missed my point", I clearly didn't, because I was arguing against your point (That acts against Palestinians get so much more media coverage than acts against Israelis), which I still think is rubbish. Next time half a dozen Israelis are blown to pieces by terrorist scumbags, I guarantee it'll be front-page news for every major news service out there. Or do you really think that rocket attacks that almost never kill anyone deserve equal treatment to Palestinian children blown up by Israeli missiles? Because if so, you will never be satisfied, and there's nothing I or the BBC can do about that.

 

[boarder]

boarder
The very idea of the state of Palestine is ridiculous for me - and I'm NOT joking...
(I have the right to have a political view - I don't tell anyone to do anything though.)

Really, i would have though it was the most viable way to have peace in the region, each have a state that leaves each other alone for a few years and then eventually peace would come out of that, why do you not think this is the best solution?

Of course you have the right to a political view.
Wether its right or wrong everyone is IMO entitled to a view that they hold without being attacked for it.

 

[blackheart]

Next time half a dozen Israelis are blown to pieces by terrorist scumbags, I guarantee it'll be front-page news for every major news service out there. Or do you really think that rocket attacks that almost never kill anyone deserve equal treatment to Palestinian children blown up by Israeli missiles?

Quoted for truth. People aren't going to care until a lot of someones die.

 

[Leha]

Don't just say, "you missed my point", I clearly didn't, because I was arguing against your point (That acts against Palestinians get so much more media coverage than acts against Israelis), which I still think is rubbish. Next time half a dozen Israelis are blown to pieces by terrorist scumbags, I guarantee it'll be front-page news for every major news service out there. Or do you really think that rocket attacks that almost never kill anyone deserve equal treatment to Palestinian children blown up by Israeli missiles? Because if so, you will never be satisfied, and there's nothing I or the BBC can do about that.

No. You missed my point....again. What I was saying, and you missed, was: these media outlets mentioned,were too eager to grasp version, proposed to them by palestinian side and put it in headlines blaming Israel without as much as simple check, not even waiting for Israeli investigation. Damage was huge and now no facts will repair it. If it is not bias, I don't know what is.

Also you completely ignored this part of my post where I point to your misleading in thinking that if Qasams are less accurate, they deserve less attention. Though Qasams are less accurate, intention to target civilians is crucial here. So I completely disagree with you in that aspect.
And one last thing. Suppose palestinian terrorists are no longer able to perform suicide bombings, like in Gaza, because they can't get into Israeli territory. What's left for them - launch missile projectiles toward cities. By your logic it has less chance to get to headlines than suicide bombings. Which inevitably will lead to conclusion terrorists "became" more peacefull.

 

[Mr. Do]

Of course intent is important, but that doesn't mean that a rocket attack that almost never kills anyone deserves as much airtime as a suicide bomb attack that kills tens. That's not media bias against Israel, that's real life. By your logic every Palestinian suicide bombing should have as much coverage as 9/11, since they both had the same intent.

 

[Leha]

Of course intent is important, but that doesn't mean that a rocket attack that almost never kills anyone deserves as much airtime as a suicide bomb attack that kills tens. That's not media bias against Israel, that's real life. By your logic every Palestinian suicide bombing should have as much coverage as 9/11, since they both had the same intent.

Media(BBC,Guardian etc.) downplay Qasam threat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/world/middleeast/16mideast.html?ex=1308110400&en=f3d8958292ad5424&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I guess the German V-2s that bombarded London would also be called “symbolic” in the view of today’s MSM, given their lousy guidance systems.

I never demanded to print frontpage article about every rocket attack. And I never demanded to have a coverage of Qasam bombing equal to this of 9/11. God forbid!
But stop downplaying terrorist deeds and magnifying and focusing on IDF responses would be nice. Also stop swallowing and then spreading Pallywood bull would be nice.

All I'm asking of media - behave ethically. Even before any sign of investigation they jumped to conclusions. And, frankly, now they look as complete asses to me. Guardian had a little of my respect before. But now they lost the little credibility they had from me.

 

[Mr. Do]

I think you overstate the effects of "Pallywood", but I do agree that sometimes western media are a bit too quick to go with stories that make Israel look bad, even when false.

Your comparison to the V-2 rockets is valid- on average 2 deaths per launch, compare that with regular bombing runs killing far more each time, there should indeed be much less coverage for the rocket attacks.

 

[FeelGood]

Edit: Oh, and please stay on topic. If you want to discuss something else, you are welcome to open new topic.

Ok... now I will be on topic....

You keep telling that it`s "Pallywood". You`re Israelis, of course you`re likely to believe that it`s faked because you will always think that you`re right. It`s basic instinct though I admit not everyone will feel like that 'cause traitor can exist in any country.

Also, I`ve gone "off-topic" since you always mention that IDF never target civilians and Israel is the victim. Of course I have to give the prove that IDF DO target civilians but through tricks... Ah..... whatever, you`ll never believe me because even the eyewitness account is useless for you. I admit anyone can fake their account on any case but the case I mentioned is REAL. And, I just want to give a REAL case of Israel violence that this "Pallywood" is a shame if it does faked. Like I said, the reality is far worse than the "Pallywood"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...mid16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/16/ixnews.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150191576640&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

I`m not sure if Jerusalem Post and Telegraph are anti-Isreal news. I just don`t want to spend my time to answer your mumbling....

Oh yeah.... another... news always want a headline no matter what! Even it means to blame Israel which is really a good headline! Of course you know this, right? So don`t just name anyone anti-Israel! Furthermore, not everyone loves you!

Also, since I can`t go off topic, I don`t want to mention other things that make me doubt on that report.

 

[Leha]

Ok... now I will be on topic....

You keep telling that it`s "Pallywood". You`re Israelis, of course you`re likely to believe that it`s faked because you will always think that you`re right

So, instead of bringing facts, examples and argumented conclusions, regular generalisations and Israel bashing - nothing new here. Next.

It`s basic instinct though I admit not everyone will feel like that 'cause traitor can exist in any country.

I'm not sure I understood that. Could you elaborate?

Also, I`ve gone "off-topic" since you always mention that IDF never target civilians and Israel is the victim. Of course I have to give the prove that IDF DO target civilians but through tricks... Ah..... whatever, you`ll never believe me because even the eyewitness account is useless for you. I admit anyone can fake their account on any case but the case I mentioned is REAL. And, I just want to give a REAL case of Israel violence that this "Pallywood" is a shame if it does faked. Like I said, the reality is far worse than the "Pallywood"

Feel free to open thread with Sabra and Shatila, or any other thread and maybe I'll discuss it with you there. Policy of IDF is "defending Israel through as little civilian casualties as possible". You could start opening the threads questioning it and discuss it there.
This thread is about "Gasa beach shelling".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...mid16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/16/ixnews.html:

You mean this http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2005/10/garlasco_bio.html "independent" "expert" working for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "neutral" organisation???

Here http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/26678.html you can find Mark (what a surprise ) caught with his pants down.

You think this link is supposed to prove something?
I repeat, reread posts I posted before, see links and just answer some questions:

1) How come the camera crew is magically appearing on the beach several minutes after blast?(and before ambulance)
2) How come filming such a "sensational" material they "forgot" to film crater(and damn huge one)?
3) Why palestinian side refused to cooperate in the first days?

Also read this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264158,00.html

Very good questions are asked here.^^

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150191576640&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

And what about this link? (save the fact that Kofi Annan making complete ass of himself stating:"I don't believe it is plausible that the Palestinians planted charges in a place where civilians often spend their time". When there are hundreds of cases they did exactly this kind of things before)

I`m not sure if Jerusalem Post and Telegraph are anti-Isreal news. I just don`t want to spend my time to answer your mumbling....

As we said in Ukraine, when not sure - wear condom
If my "mumbling" is wasting your time, then you most definetely should stop spending it!

Oh yeah.... another... news always want a headline no matter what!

Didn't understand that.

So don`t just name anyone anti-Israel! Furthermore, not everyone loves you!

It is not new for me! You can skip proving this specific bit.

Also, since I can`t go off topic, I don`t want to mention other things that make me doubt on that report.

Hey, you should've started with that! Then maybe you wouldn't have to waste so precious time of yours.

 

[Mr. Do]

Also read this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264158,00.html

Very good questions are asked here.^^

Interesting site- I thought that, it being Israeli, it would be extremely biased. But, while parts of the article were indeed quite poor, it doesn't seem entirely pro-Israel to me. So I looked at the main page, and saw this article:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264384,00.html

An Israeli ashamed that children are killed by his country's armed forces, even though they're accidental... that's a first for me.

 

[Leha]

Interesting site- I thought that, it being Israeli, it would be extremely biased.

Did you notice Ynet was citing German newspaper?(Hint:It is called Sued Deutsche) Or you usually dismiss such "unimportant" details?
Also, let's suppose Ynet is biased. (It indeed has very strong left bias). Did you read questions asked there? You can see videos filmed by palestinians and ask exactly same questions yourself. What does it have to do with bias?????

Also did you miss that little snip?:

A late note: The column had already been submitted when the defense minister and the IDF chief of staff held a news conference. They announced that according to the findings of the initial investigation, it was not an Israeli shell that killed the Ghalia family. They could not say who was responsible or how it happened. However Defense Minister Peretz used the opportunity to express his sorrow over the fact that in the days that had passed since the Gaza beach incident, IDF missiles had killed eight Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including, of course, children.

Edit:

An Israeli ashamed that children are killed by his country's armed forces, even though they're accidental... that's a first for me.

And you thought they were heartless bloody baby-killers? Talk about MSM.......

 

[Mr. Do]

Your English may not be 100%, so I'll clarify: when I went there, I had thought (assumed) that it would be full of pro-Israel bias; in fact, from that article and others also on the site, I realised that this was not true. Having browsed the site, I do not think it is significantly biased.

Of course I didn't miss that final bit, I wasn't using that article as evidence that Israel was guilty in this case, but to illustrate that it provides articles that are unfavourable to Israel. And no, I didn't think Israelis were heartless baby killers, I'm just always disappointed at how so many people almost completely disregard the killing of civilians by Israel simply because they're "accidental". To me, the fact that without trying, Israel kills more civilians than the Palestinians do (while trying their hardest) is very depressing.

 

[Princeps]

Also, you shouldn't forget those who die indirectly due to Israeli action.

 

[Leha]

Your English may not be 100%, so I'll clarify: when I went there, I had thought (assumed) that it would be full of pro-Israel bias; in fact, from that article and others also on the site, I realised that this was not true. Having browsed the site, I do not think it is significantly biased.

Of course I didn't miss that final bit, I wasn't using that article as evidence that Israel was guilty in this case, but to illustrate that it provides articles that are unfavourable to Israel. And no, I didn't think Israelis were heartless baby killers, I'm just always disappointed at how so many people almost completely disregard the killing of civilians by Israel simply because they're "accidental". To me, the fact that without trying, Israel kills more civilians than the Palestinians do (while trying their hardest) is very depressing.

I didn't understand you correctly then. I apologize.
Sometimes my english puts me in troubles indeed, but this time it was not the case.
I thought you being sceptical.