|
|
| Re: Israel Losing the PR War (1210159) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Israel Losing the PR War |
|
|
Posted by subfan on Sun Aug 3 17:02:24 2014, in response to Re: Israel Losing the PR War, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 3 13:53:14 2014. My, my, my, you do have a way with the half-truths and innuendos, don't you.1. The Mavi Marmara - I absolutely acknowledge that Israel intended to board the supposed humanitarian convoy against the wishes of those on board. Israel had announced well in advance that it would prevent the ships from docking in Gaza, and the thought was that as this was intended more as a symbolic gesture than a true blockade-running attempt, the resistance put up would be only passive and pro-forma. Based on this, the Israeli soldiers involved were not equipped with the weaponry that would have been generally used in either a true battle or in a violent crowd-control scenario - they did not have the normal combat rifles for battle or tear gas and stun grenades used for crowd control. Accordingly, when things got out of hand, the only weapons they had were their personal handguns - which were used when their lives were in danger. You can accuse Israel of poor planning and execution of the raid - that unquestionably was the case. Attributing malice, though, is pure falsehood. 2. I never said Israel continues to occupy Gaza - I said they are BLOCKADING Gaza. For those with simple minds, the definitions are: Occupying - having a physical presence on the ground Blockading - preventing/restricting entry and/or exit I have no issue acknowledging Israel's blockade of Gaza since 2007, when Hamas took over. You may consider this unjustified or overly restrictive, but don't make things up and say there's an occupation when there is no such thing - and don't try to put words in my mouth about this either. 3. "Israel deliberately targets civilians all the time and everyone knows it." That's a load of hooey and anyone with half a brain knows that. If Israel deliberately wanted to kill Arab civilians, they have plenty of means to do so - any modern army can easily do so. The fact that Israel sent infantry into Gaza - rather than just using its air force to blow the whole place to kingdom come - is specifically to minimize civilian casualties. You may believe they should exercise still more caution on this front, but the facts on the ground prove that there's no deliberate attempt to kill civilians. Yes, there are times that Israel may attack even when they know there are likely to be civilian casualties, but they do so when there is a military objective that is considered to be significant enough to justify the collateral damage. Like I said, war is hell, and innocent people get hurt - but you should look to those who deliberately base themselves and their weaponry amongst civilians for answers, and not those who are forced to confront them. 4. Comparing Israel and Hamas - Comparing the two is actually quite instructive. One deliberately targets civilians, the other tries to avoid them. Hamas has had a certain degree of success in killing civilians (think: suicide bombings) until Israel developed effective methods of stopping them. Israel has repeatedly given up the advantage of surprise to warn civilians in areas it plans on attacking in order to avoid taking lives - with Hamas then urging civilians to stay there as human shields. Tell me, if Israel was so eager to kill civilians, why would Hamas urge the civilians to stay in place? How would that help - it would just give Israel more civilians to kill? The answer is that even Hamas knows that Israel tries to avoid killing civilians, and therefore try to protect their military assets by keeping such civilians in place. So yes, you can absolutely compare Israel and Hamas - and it makes it blatantly obvious who values innocent life and who does not. 5. Independently verifiable - You are correct; I don't post links. There are two reasons for this - one, I'm on a smartphone, and it's rather difficult to track down links while keeping this site open, and two, I don't want to be accused of choosing sites that are slanted one way or the other - people can choose their own sites. The ones you've chosen, for the most part, are quite one-sided and propagandistic - they are "news" sites only in the broadest sense of the word. The facts I've posted should be easily findable on a number of well-known and respected news sites. 6. My "persecution complex" - well, I suppose having rockets shot at me and my family on a regular basis by people who repeatedly vow to kill us would have an impact on my world view. This is an academic exercise for you, but it's real life for me. So, while you may consider it hyperbole to say that no, I won't lay down and die nicely, hearing the explosions of rockets that have been sent by people who'd gladly see me and my family dead makes it quite real to me. It's kind of interesting - this time, you've not only been spouting off based on warped versions of events, you've actually even tried to twist my own words. You really are desperate, aren't you. subfan |
|
|
|