Israeli soldiers convicted for using Palestinian children to check booby-traps

Einhard wrote: »

Eh yeah, ok. Except for the fact that nobody in this thread has so far labelled anyone "pro-Palestinian" or "terrorist supporters", whereas one of the first posts in response was the snide "In before the friends of Israel arrive". It seems it's ok for one side to dismiss all contrary opinion in such a manner though. how convenient for you that they always happen to share your POV on the issue...

You don't have to label anyone pro-Palestinian, or 'terrorist supporters', you were implicitly labeling people critcizing Israel.

You argument mentioning the poster who said "In before the friends of Israel arrive" is similar the second thing in my last post:

KyussBishop wrote: »

2: "Well it's not like the Palestinians haven't done the same":
If true, this doesn't make it any less newsworthy, and (to take it to a length which hasn't been said) if such an argument is applied to imply hypocrisy, for not mentioning that Palestinians may do the same thing, then that is a false argument because:
- Nobody has made the claim saying Palestinians don't do the same, and there is nothing said to imply people hold them to a different standard
- Even if it were hypocrisy, that would not invalidate an argument, or make this less newsworthy; it stands by itself
- Israeli crimes are more frequent, on a larger scale (thus far more disproportionate), and show a far greater level of inhumane treatment than Palestinian actions, Israel are also the oppressors in this conflict; thus Israel will (rightly) get far more negative attention

Lets adjust that a bit:
- I didn't make the claim that anti-Israeli posters don't do the same, there's nothing to imply I hold them to a different standard
- Even if, by not mentioning the post you quoted, I was being hypocritical (which I wasn't), that wouldn't invalidate my argument; it stands by itself
- Pro-Israeli posters use false arguments and dishonest tactics in their posts on a far larger scale, and show a far greater inhumane attitude towards people (Palestinian civilians) than anti-Israeli posters (who almost never show similar disregard for Israeli's, minus the inevitable tiny handful of idiots); thus pro-Israel posters will (rightly) get far more negative attention, due to the content of their posts


NOTE: I don't like using the anti-Israel/pro-Israel labels, but it's the simplest way to state what I'm saying.

You did, implicitly:

Einhard wrote: »

SugarHigh wrote:

I'm not an Israeli supporter by the way it's just that in this specific case I don't see how it's the state of Israel that's at fault because of the actions by 2 rogue soldiers.

Oh but you are. You have a relatively nuanced view of the incident at hand, and don't use it to reflexively slam Israel, so therefore you're a "friend of Israel" and an inhman scumbag. That's how it works here you see.

My (indirect) reply, which you quoted in your reply to me:

KyussBishop wrote: »

3: "If you don't immediately condemn Israel, anti-Israeli's label you an apologist/scumbag"
Lazy straw man argument, which in itself ironically/hypocritically labels all anti-Israeli (for lack of a better term) posters, as irrational and dishonest, and is a very thinly veiled way of trying to discredit their arguments through attacking credibility.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Complete and absolute bull.

Anti-Israel supporters are forever attacking the poster not the post and attempt to invalidate posters opinions by using phrases like "apologist" and the like. Anti-Israel supporters frequently use hyperbole in their posts and strawman arguments to attack Israel. There are important things to be talked about regarding the middle east but the vitriol from the anti-Israeli side makes rational discussion all but impossible sometimes.

Your own post is hypocritical by trying to portray pro-Israel supporters as monolithic and inhumane and attacking their character whereas anti-Israel supporters are apparently pure of heart and even handed.

I rarely see a thread on this topic, where the arguments defending Israel's actions are not very well deconstructed by people condemning their actions.
Criticizing the posters for what they are defending, is not out of bounds, and is not wrong (it is necessary even, as some peoples viewpoints on these issues are quite disgusting, and that deserves to be pointed out/criticized); to use that in itself as your argument is wrong though.

From some (not all, as you could misread my previous post as saying) of the actual posters defending Israel, you will come across a range of arguments/tactics designed at obfuscation, deflecting arguments back at people ("they do it too", "why don't you mention their actions too?" etc.), straw men, painting it all as a "necessary evil" etc., diminishing condemnation, other arguments like "we're not in a position to judge", "we don't know the facts on the ground" etc. even though available data gives plenty of justification for judgment, and craploads more.

The list of purely dishonest arguments used is quite large, and they are usually arguments which the posters must consciously know are dishonest, and it makes me (and really should make others) think about what it is exactly that these people are defending: usually, the murder and oppression of an entire population, and in some threads, the deaths of specific individuals.

If some of these posters must be entirely conscious of the dishonest arguments they are making, and defend that kind of stuff, what does that say about them as people, and what are their motives for that? (if their arguments require being knowingly false, that implies they know what they are defending is wrong)
I know it's possible (paradoxically) for even the nicest people, who if you knew them in person you know would never harm anyone, can hold totally repugnant views like what has been expressed in past topics on this discussion; I still personally find it quite sickening though, and think there should be much greater personal criticism of those people.

Another thing to add: How many anti-Israel posters have defended any actions which would lead to the death of Israelis or others? If there are some, there are only a tiny proportion, whereas defense of actions which lead to death (or diminishing of criticism of such actions) are routine for posters defending Israel.

By reading my posts, it could be read that I'm attributing this to >all< posters defending Israel (or other arguments to all those criticizing); I'm not, what I'm pointing out is that it's a simple observation that posts defending Israel, and a greater portion of the posters defending them (not all of them), express views which are more ugly and reprehensible than posters criticizing/condemning Israel.


Related to the topic, here's a great article about the UN report on the flotilla deaths, by Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/01/flotilla/index.html (U.N. Report finds Israel "summarily executed" U.S. citizen on flotilla)

Mousey- wrote: »

from ops source
It is reportedly the first such conviction in Israel - where the use of civilians as human shields is banned.

theres always one egit that does somthing so wrong and new, that a ban has to be put in place against it.

"why are ya doing that"
"well, theres no law against it"

Actually it was banned because it was SOP for the IDF for 30 years.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_Shields/Index.asp

Nodin wrote: »

Actually it was banned because it was SOP for the IDF for 30 years.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_Shields/Index.asp

It would be SOP in many armies if they thought they'd get away it with.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the soldiers in "many armies" are scum then?

War is a scummy thing my young friend.

But no, soldiers in many armies aren't scum.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Would you class soldiers who use children as human shields as scum then?

I'd class soldiers convicted of using children as human shields as scum.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I notice that you have not chipped in with your personal thoughts yet, merely saying that Israel has deemed it illegal you then appear to attempt to defend said scumbag soldiers by saying that most soldiers and armies would do so if they were allowed.
You said that the soldiers were idiots, are they so simply because they broke the "rules"?

For a mere child yourself you've a way of twisting things!. Btw, I'm not slagging you off. But as your are not of military age yourself you'd be classed as a child.

In reply to Wes I said "most armies", and its the truth of it. Personally I think its a scummy thing to do. Civilians are non-combatants and would be treated as such and afforded every protection possible from the conflict.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you think they should be allowed?

Do I think they should be allowed us children as shields?.. Do I not make myself clear on this point?.

the actions of two soldiers dosnt define an army.