Political Crossfire Forums

starwest · Joined: 03 Nov 2006 Posts: 104

Now if these were men, answering a call from a local radio station, and bringing weapons and clothing, would there be such a ridiculous claim!!!

Hell NO!!

So here we have women soldiers marching to save the murderers holed up in a 'HOLY BUILDING' [calling like cowards 'mommmmie'}, with ammunition, clothing etc. and now they are claiming they are merely innocent women????

Sorry, you see we respect women, and understand that they are as capable of defending themselves and their country as men are.

give me a break!!!!

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7892 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: The fact remains, that at the time, there was no way for this to be known by the IDF. For all intensive purposes, the women were moving in a direction, when they were fired upon by the IDF who "turned" to do so...

They were rushing the Mosque, of course there was grounds to suspect and engage. This was a tense siege with the Mosque mostly destroyed by gunfire and stun grenades as well as heavy fire that had come from the Mosque. These woman charged the Mosque and even under fire a few pushed into the Mosque and managed to get the militants out.

Also your argument is silly an analogy would be if we had shot suspicuous Arab man as he ran towards a gunfight between soldiers and militants. Then when we discovered the bomb he had you would have to claim it was all illegal and a sham since we couldnt have known.

Quote: And what court decides this.

Internationa Convention and Logic. They became activily involved in a military situation and carried out a military mission by acting as a relief force attempting to relieve a besieged group.

Quote: These are innocent people, who are summarily being judged as guilty by the IDF - acting with impunity - and being summarily convicted on the spot, having thier own self defense, used as "evidence" of thier guilt.

Now are you talking about the woman who attempted to relieve the siege of the Mosque or the Gunmen inside who have been applauded and given great laurels by Hamas for days now?

Quote: You don't care...

No I dont they became combatants in a military standoff and aided in the withdrawel and escape of the Hamas militants.

Quote: What court has decided, that by moving in a direction, you are declared a combatant?

Oh for christs sake man your clinging to the only argument you have left which is that "Oh but they couldnt have known they were going to become involved!" Come off it. They were combatants because they made a charge against the Mosque, they entered a militant position, they gave the means to escape to these militants, and aided in their withdrawel and escape.

Quote: I have admitted no such thing. For all we know they were civilians, simply defending themselves from the IDF who is acting with impunity.

Oh come on man, you just said they were defending themselves against the IDF. That is a clear acception that they became active combatants. Not to mention you remain one of the sole people on the planet arguing that seems to want to argue that they were innocent civilians. Hamas has been saying since the beginning that these men were militants, it called for the woman to releive the resistance fighters, and it has heralded the escape of the militants with glee since the beginning, and all the world has called them what they were. This is the most absurd point to argue.

Those men were armed, they were militants. This is an undisputed fact between Israel and Hamas.

Quote: Again, what legal grounds?

The moment attacked we have legal right to respond. Also if you wish to be truley technically legal as you appear to want to be, as non-nation state the Hamas led factions in the Gaza Strip cannot claim any protection from international conventions protecting against aggression from states. But that displays why it is ridiculous to sit in a chair ignoring the reality of the conflict and argue from purely legal technical perspectives.

Quote: At the point these women were fired upon, they were innocent, regaurdless of intent

No and No. Their intent was clear, they were rushing into a military zone toward an enemy position. And they followed through with that goal and every suspicion that we had proved correct within seconds. Had we waited another 15 seconds you would have lost the last facit of your argument.

bunny I have never said this before, but I think you should back down on this argument. You have systimatically withdrawn your arguments to the point where you are on a final leg with your remaining argument being that "They didnt know they were going to be involved yet" which even if true is not strong evidence of any incorrect action. And that argument itself is open to heavy dispute as they were indeed running towards the Mosque as our soldiers claimed.

Grasping at straws you have attempted to argue that the men inside were not proven militants, but this is absurd on a number of levels starting with the fact that both sides Hamas and Israel assert that they were as does the bulk of the world including the Arab world. Secondly why would we organize a military cordon and engage in firefights and refuse entry to a building which was not occupied by armed troops?

You have also retired your argument that the woman were not combatants falling back to a point that Israel couldnt have known they would become activly involved.

I do not mean this to offend you but you simply do not have a very arguable case. You have argued your own view against the evidence, against the words of the people on who's behalf your arguing, against the claimaints Hamas and Israel, and you have no evidence. Please do not take this with offence but I think this is one argument you might want to either concede or perhaps simply we could end our debate over it instead. Bunny I enjoy debating you but this simply doesnt have any real weight to debate with.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Bunny
Quote: The fact remains, that at the time, there was no way for this to be known by the IDF. For all intensive purposes, the women were moving in a direction, when they were fired upon by the IDF who "turned" to do so..
If you rush towards a gun battle then you want to be there. So the IDF, for all intensive purposes, would be forced to assume that a large group of people heading into a gun battle on their own free will are actually some sort of combatant via aiding the enemy.
Also how much can the IDF be expected to know when these women wear head to toe dress? Some even covering their entire face... break out the x-ray vision IDF.

Quote: the fact remains, that these women were fired upon, at a stage in the sequence of events, in which it was not evident what thier intention was
From what I've read it remains a rather undisputed fact that these women answered the call of Hamas to aid the gunmen. Also it's an undisputed fact that these women rushed towards a gun battle. That shows their intention.
Shoot them all, they are all active combatants.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

starwest wrote: Now if these were men, answering a call from a local radio station, and bringing weapons and clothing, would there be such a ridiculous claim!!!

Hell NO!!

So here we have women soldiers marching to save the murderers holed up in a 'HOLY BUILDING' [calling like cowards 'mommmmie'}, with ammunition, clothing etc. and now they are claiming they are merely innocent women????

Sorry, you see we respect women, and understand that they are as capable of defending themselves and their country as men are.

give me a break!!!!

P&S wrote: 8. If the women had huddled around the men whilst the alleged escapes were in the middle of them, and the IDF had decided to open fire, The IDF might have had a case, but this isnt the case. And if so source

This debate has taken on the usual defence of Israeli action and the defenses for these engagements. I made this statement on purpose. IF these women were surrounding the men then the IDF might have a case. But WHERE these women were shot, this was not the case. Please pro-Israeli's where in relation to the holed up men were these women shot? Secondly and most importantly what the hell was Israels IDF doing there? Oh yeah to stop Kassams, or some other excuse.

bulls**t. Israel has yet again gone in there as punitive punish for Mr Shalit. This is an illegal occupation. There has never been a indigenous population who have'nt attacked the occupiers. Another Israeli incursion based on lame excuses. Israel sends in the IDF and calls the Palestinians pissed of at Israels willful killing of there fellow men Palestinian militants and gun men, whilst always excusing there own behaviour. Who would'nt pick up arms against the IDF?
There's a difference between those who attack Israel and those who defend. But Israeli P.R tars them all with the same brush.

bunny · Joined: 14 Oct 2006 Posts: 584

Plato & Socrates wrote: starwest wrote: Now if these were men, answering a call from a local radio station, and bringing weapons and clothing, would there be such a ridiculous claim!!!

Hell NO!!

So here we have women soldiers marching to save the murderers holed up in a 'HOLY BUILDING' [calling like cowards 'mommmmie'}, with ammunition, clothing etc. and now they are claiming they are merely innocent women????

Sorry, you see we respect women, and understand that they are as capable of defending themselves and their country as men are.

give me a break!!!!

P&S wrote: 8. If the women had huddled around the men whilst the alleged escapes were in the middle of them, and the IDF had decided to open fire, The IDF might have had a case, but this isnt the case. And if so source

This debate has taken on the usual defence of Israeli action and the defenses for these engagements. I made this statement on purpose. IF these women were surrounding the men then the IDF might have a case. But WHERE these women were shot, this was not the case. Please pro-Israeli's where in relation to the holed up men were these women shot? Secondly and most importantly what the hell was Israels IDF doing there? Oh yeah to stop Kassams, or some other excuse.

bulls**t. Israel has yet again gone in there as punitive punish for Mr Shalit. This is an illegal occupation. There has never been a indigenous population who have'nt attacked the occupiers. Another Israeli incursion based on lame excuses. Israel sends in the IDF and calls the Palestinians pissed of at Israels willful killing of there fellow men Palestinian militants and gun men, whilst always excusing there own behaviour. Who would'nt pick up arms against the IDF?
There's a difference between those who attack Israel and those who defend. But Israeli P.R tars them all with the same brush.

+1

You Terrorist

Again, these women were targeted by the IDF, who turned away from the Mosque to fire at them. It would have been impossible from the IDF to know that the womens intention had been to act as human shields, at that point.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

bunny wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: starwest wrote: Now if these were men, answering a call from a local radio station, and bringing weapons and clothing, would there be such a ridiculous claim!!!

Hell NO!!

So here we have women soldiers marching to save the murderers holed up in a 'HOLY BUILDING' [calling like cowards 'mommmmie'}, with ammunition, clothing etc. and now they are claiming they are merely innocent women????

Sorry, you see we respect women, and understand that they are as capable of defending themselves and their country as men are.

give me a break!!!!

P&S wrote: 8. If the women had huddled around the men whilst the alleged escapes were in the middle of them, and the IDF had decided to open fire, The IDF might have had a case, but this isnt the case. And if so source

This debate has taken on the usual defence of Israeli action and the defenses for these engagements. I made this statement on purpose. IF these women were surrounding the men then the IDF might have a case. But WHERE these women were shot, this was not the case. Please pro-Israeli's where in relation to the holed up men were these women shot? Secondly and most importantly what the hell was Israels IDF doing there? Oh yeah to stop Kassams, or some other excuse.

bulls**t. Israel has yet again gone in there as punitive punish for Mr Shalit. This is an illegal occupation. There has never been a indigenous population who have'nt attacked the occupiers. Another Israeli incursion based on lame excuses. Israel sends in the IDF and calls the Palestinians pissed of at Israels willful killing of there fellow men Palestinian militants and gun men, whilst always excusing there own behaviour. Who would'nt pick up arms against the IDF?
There's a difference between those who attack Israel and those who defend. But Israeli P.R tars them all with the same brush.

+1

You Terrorist

Again, these women were targeted by the IDF, who turned away from the Mosque to fire at them. It would have been impossible from the IDF to know that the womens intention had been to act as human shields, at that point.

At the very least these women were stupid. At the very least these men were cowards in asking unarmed women to bail them out. If these women got shot up surrounding the men I would have little to say. But they were no where near the men at that time. and still got shot. That has always been my point.

starwest · Joined: 03 Nov 2006 Posts: 104

Quote: You Terrorist

Hey Bunny,

You reported

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

starwest wrote: Quote: You Terrorist

Hey Bunny,

You reported
bunny wasn't really calling him a terrorist. He was being sarcastic.

bunny · Joined: 14 Oct 2006 Posts: 584

starwest wrote: Quote: You Terrorist

Hey Bunny,

You reported

Green Ink = Sarcasm

Why would I be calling someone I agree with, and complimented on thier post, a terrorist, and be serious?

bunny · Joined: 14 Oct 2006 Posts: 584

Skippy,

I think we can all agree that hindsight is 20/20, and that is simply what we are dealing with here, when looking at this situation. We have accpeted certian facts of this case, and seemignly, in turn, we have projected these discoveries ontot the situation as it unfolded, which is an error when looking to see what happened here, as the events unfolded. It's through hindsight that we know thier intention was to act as human shileds - note it was thier intention, the were not coerced, as is teh common definition of a human shield, someone used against thier will - This hindsight, however was not available to the IDF forces at the time. It has been noted that the IDF turned away from the Mosque and fired upon the group of women who walking in the direction of the Mosque. The IDF acted. They targeted a group of civilians with lethal force, before determinig & confirming thier coarse of action. This is a straight forward case of acting with impunity, summarily punishing civilians.

We are all innocent, remember this. It is what allows us to be civilized, in how our society operates, serving the people, not the gov't.

Even if the group of women had achieved thier goal, and reached thier desired poisiton, before being fired upon. This was an act of protest, not an act of engaging in combat. These women were unarmed, and thier protest; was to help besieged men, by an invading force, through non-violent action - Their actions are noble, and commendable, on several levels - What right does the IDF have in shooting unarmed civilians who are legally using themselves as shields in protest of the invading & occupying IDF.

Now regaurdless of whether you agree with this pov or not, you must stop and realize that it is validated from the pov of the women. Put yourself in their shoes, for decades watchign thier relatives suffer via the hand of the IDF, watching their children suffer, watching themselves & their dreams suffer, suffocate away, simply because they are caught in the vices of the IDF. Are tehy supposed to do nothing while more of thier men, their families, are besieged in a house of God? How much longer are they to stand around & watch thier country be raped by Israel?

Di · Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 929 Location: Northern Calif

Let me get this Gaza thing straight. If I understand correctly, an agreement was reached between Israel and the Palestinian governing body that Isreal would remove all of its settlers and settlements and withdraw totally from Gaza. In return, the Palestinian governing body would control their own militants, take responsibility for Gaza security, and stop firing rockets from Gaza into Israel. So Israel forcibly removed all of its citizens and withdrew totally from Gaza. In response, Gaza militants went onto Israeli soil, murdered Israeli soldiers and kidnapped one, and continued to fire rockets into Israel in violation of the agreement. Factories in Gaza continued to create explosive devices and rockets. The Palestinian governing body did absolutely nothing to stop it.

So now the IDF finally gets pissed and heads back into Gaza to shut down the rocket factories and search for their kidnapped soldier. They surround a "house of worship" in which dozens of shooting militants have "taken refuge"... a mosque which apparently doubled as a weapons storage facility. A gun battle ensues. Palestinian media implores women and children to surround the mosque to protect these sterling freedom fighters who have once again shown that Palestinian agreements are worth less than poop, and while these brave women and children scramble to do as they were requested, some of them are wounded and killed in the crossfire.

And all of this is Israel's fault. Again.

Have I got that about right?

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: This debate has taken on the usual defence of Israeli action and the defenses for these engagements. I made this statement on purpose. IF these women were surrounding the men then the IDF might have a case. But WHERE these women were shot, this was not the case.
The IDF had every right to shoot them women. They came on the purpose to act as shields. The IDF was engaged in a firefight as it was and these women were active combatants by helping the gunmen. Further more you cannot see if many were men or not due to the way they dress, you cannot see if they are hiding a weapon, you cannot see if they are strapped with explosives, you cannot see if they have a grenade. You can see they came running to a gunfight to help the gunmen. All are fair game at this point.
Do you think the IDF is unable to monitor the local boardcasting to look for these kinds of requests from terorrists?

bunny · Joined: 14 Oct 2006 Posts: 584

Di wrote:
Have I got that about right?

partially, but you are neglecting to take many facts into account, and thus skewing the prespective from which you speak IE; you are not being honest & only showing 40% of the picture

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7892 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: note it was thier intention, the were not coerced, as is teh common definition of a human shield, someone used against thier will - This hindsight, however was not available to the IDF forces at the time. It has been noted that the IDF turned away from the Mosque and fired upon the group of women who walking in the direction of the Mosque.

They were a several score mob rushing towards a mosque we had a very good idea of what it was they were going to do, and obviously we were right, save that hesitation to fire on them stayed our hand from really preventing their move against the Mosque. Also there are reports surficing of gunmen firing from the crowd of woman.

Quote: Even if the group of women had achieved thier goal and reached thier desired poisiton, before being fired upon

They did achieve their goal. We just shot at some of them along the way, but we didnt open up on them.

Quote: This was an act of protest, not an act of engaging in combat. These women were unarmed, and thier protest; was to help besieged men, by an invading force, through non-violent action

No. It is utterly irrelivent if they were unarmed, they entered a combat position by taking action to aid a besieged militant force and attempting to break a military cordon. They became activily involved and completely forfeited their status as civilians under the Geneva Convention Protocol I Art 43.2. The moment they became activily involved in a combat situation they forfeited their non-combatant status.

Non violent nature is irrelivent, carrying ammunition is non violent, bringing supplies is non violent, working as a staff officer is non violent, but they are all combatants. Just as these woman ceased to be civilians the moment they became involved in a military operation and have a military objective in mind.

Quote: Their actions are noble, and commendable, on several levels - What right does the IDF have in shooting unarmed civilians who are legally using themselves as shields in protest of the invading & occupying IDF.

Umm what? I cant quite tell if your arguing that they were or were not combatants at time, here you have said they were noble acting as shields for the militants but then call them civilians. I repeat they had a military objective, they were not civilians.

Quote: Now regaurdless of whether you agree with this pov or not, you must stop and realize that it is validated from the pov of the women.

They could have been suffering the most horrendous conditions this planet has to offer, and it wouldnt change the fact that they ceased to be civilians when they became militarily involved.

Quote: Are tehy supposed to do nothing while more of thier men, their families, are besieged in a house of God? How much longer are they to stand around & watch thier country be raped by Israel?

Now your not saying they were civilians, your trying to justify their own intervention for military purposes.

You can either argue it was noble and great, or you can argue they were civilians that were fired upon. Not both as you are trying to do as one tacitly accepts they werent in fact civilians, which I might stress once more they were not.

Again Bunny your hinging everything you have said on the idea that we couldnt have known at the time which is heavily disputed, while now attempting to argue against all laws and logic that they were in fact still civilians when they stormed a military cordon and broke into a besieged position to free trapped Hamas militants.

Di · Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 929 Location: Northern Calif

bunny wrote: Di wrote:
Have I got that about right?

partially, but you are neglecting to take many facts into account, and thus skewing the prespective from which you speak IE; you are not being honest & only showing 40% of the picture

As opposed to your totally honest, unbiased, unskewered perspective. :lol:

SpartanPhalanx · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2081 Location: Montreal

starwest wrote: Now if these were men, answering a call from a local radio station, and bringing weapons and clothing, would there be such a ridiculous claim!!!

Hell NO!!

So here we have women soldiers marching to save the murderers holed up in a 'HOLY BUILDING' [calling like cowards 'mommmmie'}, with ammunition, clothing etc. and now they are claiming they are merely innocent women????

Sorry, you see we respect women, and understand that they are as capable of defending themselves and their country as men are.

give me a break!!!!

Doesn't sound like you respect women to me. You see no problem in shooting unarmed women because they march to protect their men. These actions have been done countless times throughout history. Only your own ignorance prevents you from showing reason in this respect.

You have no idea the men in the mosque were murderers. How did you come to that conclusion? Just because they belong to Hamas?

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7892 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: Doesn't sound like you respect women to me. You see no problem in shooting unarmed women because they march to protect their men.

They ran towards a combat situation with the clear intent of freeing the Hamas militants holed up in the Mosque. They ceased to be civilians at that point. If we were having a shoot out with some militants and a few Hamas men unarmed ran foward to try and break them out and we shot them, we wouldnt even be having this discussion. The exact same thing happened except they were woman.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

superskippy wrote: Quote: Doesn't sound like you respect women to me. You see no problem in shooting unarmed women because they march to protect their men.

They ran towards a combat situation with the clear intent of freeing the Hamas militants holed up in the Mosque. They ceased to be civilians at that point. If we were having a shoot out with some militants and a few Hamas men unarmed ran foward to try and break them out and we shot them, we wouldnt even be having this discussion. The exact same thing happened except they were woman.

Couldn't they be kept away? Couldn't they be prevented from entering the combat area? Couldn't they be rounded up when they entered the combat area? And a lot of other questions should be asked about the conduct of the IDF. Surely, with a different strategy, this situation wouldn't have happened. Of course, planning for these situations depends on your priorities.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7892 Location: Petah Tikva

How? We had a battalion of troops besieging a Mosque with some 60 gunmen inside with firefights and grenades having destroyed much of the Mosque, and then we have over 100 woman rushing the Mosque in a mob. It's not like we had rubber bullets on hand in a firefight with Hamas. I can understand where in some situations it can be argued other options were available but not this one. Our main option was restraint, we in essence let them free the militants killing only 2 people out of the Mob and instead of opening up on them let dozens of them break into the Mosque.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

superskippy wrote: How? We had a battalion of troops besieging a Mosque with some 60 gunmen inside with firefights and grenades having destroyed much of the Mosque, and then we have over 100 woman rushing the Mosque in a mob. It's not like we had rubber bullets on hand in a firefight with Hamas. I can understand where in some situations it can be argued other options were available but not this one. Our main option was restraint, we in essence let them free the militants killing only 2 people out of the Mob and instead of opening up on them let dozens of them break into the Mosque.

IMHO the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is inherently different to all other conflicts. As such, the standard operating procedures and rules of engagement followed by the IDF must be different as well. Quite clearly, the current operating procedures are out of touch with the realities on the ground. Considering that these women were running towards the battle ground, the IDF should have closed off the area completely earlier or should have intercepted them sooner to isolate the combat area. But as I said earlier, all these depends on your priorities.

I expect at the very least, fundamental changes to be implemented in the way the IDF operates in the territories.