[PublicAnimalNo9]

Goober911 Goober911:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Goober911 Goober911:

Really, Lew reading between the lines telling us this is what it meant. This link has no cred.

The link has no cred? So the Ottawa Citizen isn't a credible media source?
And yeah, what would a retired Major-General know about military jargon anyway?

Here's an idea. Tell us what YOU think Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener meant by "This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

I missed that part. - My apologies.
But does this invalidate my points?

Yes it does.
A)It was not murder as you claimed.

B)It's no surprise the info was taken down from the net because it was obviously inaccurate in blaming the IDF for his death. And we can see why it was taken down. Now we have Jabberwocky in another thread making the same accusations. How many others have latched onto that report to use as "proof" of Israel's evil ways? How many other have latched onto the story about the report being removed and simply blamed Harper for being intolerant of criticism against Israel?
The report gave an entirely wrong assessment of the deaths of those UN observers and all it's done is given the anti-Israel and/or anti-Harper crowd more "reason" to continue piling on the hate. Even with the harsh facts for you to read, you still think your points that I initially responded to are valid.

Were the UN observers killed as a result IDF shelling and bombing? Yes. Were they murdered? No.
Were those kids on the beach murdered? Only the person who unloaded on them knows for sure. Your tie-in with what happened in 2006 brings your personal accusation of murder into question.
Did Harper have the report removed from the net? Apparently he did. Did he "sweep it under the rug" because it doesn't fit in with his policies? No.

So yeah, I'd say the facts I presented very much invalidate your points.

[Goober911]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yes it does.
A)It was not murder as you claimed.

B)It's no surprise the info was taken down from the net because it was obviously inaccurate in blaming the IDF for his death. And we can see why it was taken down. Now we have Jabberwocky in another thread making the same accusations. How many others have latched onto that report to use as "proof" of Israel's evil ways? How many other have latched onto the story about the report being removed and simply blamed Harper for being intolerant of criticism against Israel?
The report gave an entirely wrong assessment of the deaths of those UN observers and all it's done is given the anti-Israel and/or anti-Harper crowd more "reason" to continue piling on the hate. Even with the harsh facts for you to read, you still think your points that I initially responded to are valid.

Were the UN observers killed as a result IDF shelling and bombing? Yes. Were they murdered? No.
Were those kids on the beach murdered? Only the person who unloaded on them knows for sure. Your tie-in with what happened in 2006 brings your personal accusation of murder into question.
Did Harper have the report removed from the net? Apparently he did. Did he "sweep it under the rug" because it doesn't fit in with his policies? No.

So yeah, I'd say the facts I presented very much invalidate your points.

Nope. Did the Govt change the report - Nope.
Did the Govt state why it was removed. If they did I missed it.
Did Israel cooperate with the investigation. Not that I am aware of.
Call it collateral damage, call it an accident, call it what you will.
Israel wanted the UN out of that position, and they should have been removed.
Israel is not fond of the UN and is well justified for that position, but not always.
Recall the Goldstone report. Israel refused to cooperate. The report cited Israel for a number of things.
Then Israel decided to cooperate, the report changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... a_Conflict

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, known as the Goldstone Report, was a team established in April 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) during the Gaza War (January 2009) as an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the Palestinian territories, particularly the Gaza Strip, in connection with Gaza War.[1] South African jurist Richard Goldstone was appointed to head the mission.[1][2] Goldstone's work investigating violence led directly to him being nominated to serve as the first chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda from August 1994 to September 1996.

Israel refused to cooperate with the report, which was released on 15 September 2009.[citation needed] The report accused both the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian militants of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. It recommended that each sides openly investigates their own conduct, and to bring the allegations to the International Criminal Court if they failed to do so.[3][4] The government of Israel rejected the report as prejudiced and full of errors, and also sharply rejected the charge that it had a policy of deliberately targeting civilians.[5] The militant Islamic group Hamas initially rejected some of the report's findings,[6] but then urged world powers to embrace it.[7]

The controversial report received wide support among countries in the United Nations, while Western countries were split between supporters and opponents of the resolutions endorsing the report.[8][9][10][11] Critics of the report claimed that it contained methodological failings, legal and factual errors, and falsehoods, and devoted insufficient attention to the allegations that Hamas was deliberately operating in heavily populated areas of Gaza.[12][13]

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14] On 14 April 2011 the three other coauthors of the United Nations (UN) fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008–2009 Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers released a joint statement criticizing Goldstone's recantation of this aspect of the report. They all agreed that the report was valid and that Israel and Hamas had failed to investigate alleged war crimes satisfactorily.[15][1

[Goober911]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.605568

When the first missile hit the retaining wall of the small Gaza Harbor, shortly after 4 P.M this afternoon, Peter Beaumont was just finishing an analysis piece before filing to his newspaper, The Guardian in London. Beaumont, the Guardian's Jerusalem correspondent was sitting on the beach-facing terrace al-Deira Hotel.

"The internet works better there than in the rooms so a lot of us do our writing there. So I literally was looking in that direction when I hear an almighty bang and saw an explosion on the pier wall," he told Haaretz.

Beaumont, who has been in Gaza for the last nine days, said that during the time he has been at the hotel, that area of the harbor has been hit by the IDF "at least three times." Following the explosion, "on the retaining wall there were puffs of smoke and we saw four people running along it. They ran all along until they reached the beach and jumped down. They were turning and running towards us and through the smoke you can see they were children." The second explosion came about forty seconds after the first and around thirty meters away. According to Beaumont "there was no warning signal or sound of airplanes before the explosions."

The second explosion was right behind the group of three children and one young man who were running in the direction of the hotel. "You couldn't mistake them even through the smoke, it was obvious they were children. The oldest one who was thirteen looked to me as if he was eight. These were dinky raggedy fisherman kids wearing shorts."

"We didn't think they had been injured at that stage" Beaumont says "and one of them, the 21-year-old, comes up and he's been hit in the abdomen and in a lot pain. He was about to faint and the waiters caught him and bundled him into a taxi to the hospital. We got some med kits from the rooms and the three kids are sitting in the corner of the terrace. One had blood in his T-shirt and we pulled it up found a shrapnel wound in his chest. So I began cleaning his wound and dressing and checking his breathing. Another of the kids was also seen to, he had quite a lot of abrasions. Then the ambulance came and took them to Shifa Hospital."

[Goober911]

And yes I dislike Harper, but I have no use for the other 2 as well.
Reason why I dislike Harper, the New Veterans Charter - and a few other reasons pop to mind but that was the clincher for me.

[Delwin]

Interesting video where Netanyahu believes the camera is turned off and starts to show his true colors, he speaks about instilling fear in the Palestinians and hitting them with many painful hits. He also brags about his ability to manipulate the US and UN and how he derailed the Oslo accord. Not sure if it was already posted.

[Goober911]

Delwin Delwin:

Interesting video where Netanyahu believes the camera is turned off and starts to show his true colors, he speaks about instilling fear in the Palestinians and hitting them with many painful hits. He also brags about his ability to manipulate the US and UN and how he derailed the Oslo accord. Not sure if it was already posted.

The Oslo accord is full of holes.
It takes 2 for negotiation.
And Arafat fuked it up.

[Goober911]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... y/?hpid=z3

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart got edgy on an edgy topic in July, not long after the start of hostilities in Gaza between Hamas and Israel. He skewered the practice of Israel Defense Forces of issuing warning shots to Gaza residents when bona fide airstrikes were impending. Stewart called the foretaste an “amuse-boom,” and then railed, “And then at that point, what are Gazans supposed to do?! Evacuate to where? Have you f—ing seen Gaza? Israel has blocked this border. Egypt blocked this border. What are they supposed to do? Swim for it!?”

As pointed out in a thorough profile in the Hollywood Reporter, critics went off, with some resorting “to that tiresome trope of the self-hating Jew,” writes Marisa Guthrie.

And then Stewart tells Guthrie what he thinks about all that: “Look, there’s a lot of reasons why I hate myself — being Jewish isn’t one of them.