Comments on: War Crimes in Gaza, Mogadishu

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:00:03 +0000

Jay_C- I’m perfectly willing to say that Isreal may be distorting it’s side as well. I feel though that all we can do as observers is look at both sides as closely as possible. I will say that when I look at the pro-Palestinian side there has been so much falsification and fraud, and obvious propaganda- that I’m more dismissive of those media accounts and more likely to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. There’s obviously a danger to that, in that the Isrealis too may see that the propaganda from the other side is working and they may be trying to counter it with false reports as well. But given that Reuters has been unequivocably cooperative with pro-Palestinian propagandists, I can’t help but be submissive of ANYTHING that doesn’t pass the sniff test on that side of the equation while being more of a mild skeptic regarding the information given out by the pro-Isreali side.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:24:28 +0000

In fairness, however, what is your answer if Isreali’s side of the story is not true, or as true as they say?

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:14:26 +0000

I can agree with that.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:58:29 +0000

Jay_C- I agree that we shouldn’t harden ourselves to accept the death of large numbers of children. But the problem is that that makes it even more essential to determine whether those children actually died as a result of Isreali excessive force or Palestinian use of human shields and manipulation of world opinion.

I’m not into assigning blame just for the sake of directing anger and outrage- but in these cases, it’s essential to get to the source of the problem because whichever side is more directly responsible for those children’s lives needs to be held accountable. There’s simply no way to stop these acts from repeating themselves until the world knows how and why they are occurring. If the Isreali’s side of the story is true, then people in the rest of the world need to be able to resist the effect that the Palestinian militants desire, which would be for us to hold Isreal accountable and insist that Isreal stop the fighting because of it.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:31:58 +0000

sorry, but I guess I am saying we *shouldn’t* wash our hands of this and say, it’s all becuase of wired

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:30:54 +0000

And that may be the case (without even looking I’ll give you that their is video of a school being wired for this), but there is the question of the ratio of this sort of thing to excessive firepower as well. I don’t see how one wired school accounts for all of this. I agree, where there is this once incident, there probably are others, but I guess I am saying we should wash our hands of this and say, it’s all becuase of wired schools. This may make us feel more justified in our assessment of the situation, but I just don’t know the facts to judge either way. Sorry, maybe it is just me, but when it comes to kids dying in such great numbers, I think a little more effort (by all of us) needs to be put into getting to the bottom of these things, at least at the media and our discussion level.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:19:23 +0000

I’ll have to take a look at that, thanks!

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:16:00 +0000

Have you seen some of the video documenting the booby trapping though? I think Crimson Politics has a clip posted showing a school which is wired with explosives, and the detonator set up in the adjacent zoo.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:08:06 +0000

‘would you at least agree that if the former scenario occurs, that this is not the fault of the Israelis?”

If that “rube-goldberg” esque report is true (soldier, fires gun, bullet hits a trigger of sorts which then enacts a bomb that blows up the building in which combatants have then purposely surrounded themselves with children) , I would have to agree with that.

However, I tend to follow more the “occam’s-razor” principle. That sa you suggested as the alternative, that they are using excessive firepower for the situation.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:56:11 +0000

No problem, Jay_C, and thanks for responding now.

I just don’t think you are realistic about the option for ‘more surgical strikes.’ What seems to be happening, at least if one assumes that the IDF is not being completely dishonest, is that they are carrying out the kind of surgical strikes based on intel to take out terrorist leaders, but they are also having their troops respond to situations where they are under fire. Would you have the rules of engagement such that the soldiers can’t defend themselves?

And when they do respond, of course there is the question of what type of response and whether or not they are using minimal force to protect themselves while also considering the nearby civilians (esp children.) Well, again, if we believe the IDF accounts, in many of these cases they are responding with fire which THEN sets off booby traps in these buildings and facilities- and that is where most of the destruction and casualties come from. I don’t know if that is always the case, or if in some cases the soldiers themselves are using excessive firepower for the situation. But would you at least agree that if the former scenario occurs, that this is not the fault of the Israelis? And that really in those cases, there is no alternative for the IDF that would permit them to exercise defense without incurring collateral civilian casualties?