Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumGaza Reporters Boycott Forum On Hamas' New Laws for Media
Hamas has begun drafting a new law that it said would “regulate” the media in the Gaza Strip, which journalists and rights activists have criticized as restricting media freedom.
To discuss the draft with Gaza journalists, the Hamas-run government press office in Gaza last week held a forum to which more than 70 local journalists were invited. At least 60 boycotted.
“We are sorry not to see journalists here today. We invited them because we want them to share in the issuing of the law with their hands,” said Kamal al-Hadidi, head of the media production department at the Press Office, at the opening of the session.
One of the very few journalists attending, Dunia al-Amal Ismail, strongly opposed the new law for the lack of coordination with journalists, its inaccurate terms and the bad style of writing in its text.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/hamas-media-law.html#ixzz2OkTSkHoC
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)not assured, not at all.
snip* In April, the Palestinian Authority blocked several websites seen as critical of President Mahmoud Abbas, while detaining two journalists who had covered allegations of official corruption. PA security forces assaulted several journalists covering anti-government protests in July. In the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, assaults and threats against critical journalists continued, and self-censorship prevailed.
http://cpj.org/2013/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2012-israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory.php
jessie04
(1,528 posts)North Korea
China
And others I can't think of.
They also control the media and some dissidents are sent to "re-education" camps....or never heard from again.
I'm surprised Abbas let that happen. I thought he was better than that.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)like North Korea? do you have a link for that?
jessie04
(1,528 posts)I have read that dissent is frowned upon....occasionally with terminal effects .
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)thank you 
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)They do admiral work, no question about it.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)what would you like to discuss?...name it and i will be happy to....of course i will do so with the same expectation from you...that when i bring up a subject you also stick to the subject line and don't 'disappear" , change the goal posts etc. when we muddle in to the more "interesting areas' that are always avoided here.
How are ya, pelsar..long time no speak.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)which people get the risk of dying:
Its 2:30 in the afternoon, schools are being let out in israel
IDF helicopter sees a grad(s) being prepared for being fired in the direction of ashkelon-(a major city with multiple hi rises and no shelters for those in the apartments), back in gaza, a mere 50 meters from the grads on the other side of the wall are Palestinian children playing, which may or may not be affected by a missile from the helicopter ...and there are people next to the grads, none are wearing uniforms..
the pilot has a 2 seconds to decide to shoot, while also working other systems....
________
shoot or not shoot? which people get the greater risk of living or dying?
delrem
(9,688 posts)1.5 million in Gaza, 1.1 million of them refugees, in such a hothouse there's gotta be criminals aplenty to bomb. Criminals who can see what used to be their homes from their squalid refugee shelters. The pigs! So bomb 'em and say they were about to launch "grads" later, is what I say. Esp. since we all know that those Palis love their "grads" and love 'em even more if a mere 50 meters away are Palestinian children playing, because everyone knows that shira has explained that those Palis sacrifice children, use children as human shields, and train children to be suicide bombers! The monstrous inhuman fekks! So I say, go for the precision hit with a hellfire missile from a predator drone ... oops, sorry, wrong country, wrong naming system! Go for whatever missile from whatever carrier, and know yer righteous because yer creaming terrorists who sacrifice their own children, the inhuman fekkers!
oops, sorry, I got carried away by the Pelsar hypothesis. don't know why - it was such a standard and benign hypothesis.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)its not much of a "hypothesis"...at least for those who are actually aware of the real environment and don't live in the "armchair."
too much for you huh?
__________
so heres the theory for those who can't answer. It messes up the simplistic view on the conflict of who is good and who is bad, it messes up the simplicity of claiming "international law" making israel wrong and the palestenian cause right.
if you even answer the question, you have a dilemma: saying yes the pilot can shoot, means your actually agreeing to the possibility to killing Palestinian children, and if you say "no" then then the whole "mantra" of israel can defend itself is exposed to the farce that it is, and you agree that israeli lives should be at risk when even a hamasnik and friends decide to shoot a few missiles. (actually over 10,000 .....)
thats why you can't answer, and never will......stay in the armchair, its warm and cuddly and its a great place to lecture from.
delrem
(9,688 posts)designed to portray Palestinians as monsters who use "children playing a mere 50 meters away" as a human shield, putting the super moral IDF troops in the helicopter gunship in a "moral dilemma". The sole purpose of your cheap trick is to add to the ongoing defamations of e.g. shira that monstrous Palestinians use human shields, inhuman Palestinians sacrifice their own children, (when she isn't claiming that some jackass in Sweden or etc. committed "blood libel"....) -- or the lovely Golda Meir "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." and "When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons."
pelsar
(12,283 posts)it was a very real almost every day scenario. Here I'll let you think this through for minute with some info you clearly don't know:
setting up and launching kassams from an open field is a losing proposition for hamas and friends, they're easily spotted and killed with little notice by anyone.
step 2 was to launch from farms, hidden by the fruit/avocado trees, until the IDF bulldozed them, leaving them as open fields...(the farmers switched to low growing strawberries after that)
step 3 was from built up areas, where the shadows and walls give reasonable cover. Given that gaza is one of them of the most densest areas in terms of population, clearly once they're in an urban area, there will be civilians around, and that would include children, hence the scenario was not unknown.
_________________
...now that you've been educated as to the environment, we're still looking for that "internet courage"
I'll even give you a medal for bravery,but i honestly doubt you have it, since it means actually making a decision that involves a hint of reality.
Response to pelsar (Reply #23)
Post removed
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)It's a realistic situation exercise designed to demonstrate the grey areas that resist any application of "black and white reasoning" wrt this conflict.
As for your argument, it's value can only be determined by the reality of the situation. If pelsar is describing an accurate scenario that actually occurs then your criticism that it's designed to make Palestinians look bad loses its validity. And it is in fact a reality. A sad reality, but a reality nonetheless.
In many cases it is a fair sight worse than what pelsar describes.
“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”
http://electronicintifada.net/content/civilians-must-not-be-used-shield-homes-against-military-attacks/3014
Palestinians reported that in some cases, the caller leaves a message on their voice mail warning that the IDF will bomb any house where weapons are rockets are found and the owners of the houses will be the ones to suffer the consequences.
The IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes.
The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd.
It appears that the "roof knocking" technique was used in the assassination of Hamas leader Nizar Ghayan Thursday, but Ghayan decided to stay indoors with his family, and the army opted to bomb the house anyway.
Sources familiar with Ghayan's record said he was one of the people who encouraged Gazans to climb on rooftops to prevent bombings.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-phones-gaza-residents-to-warn-them-of-imminent-strikes-1.267350
delrem
(9,688 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)You know how RW radio jocks like Rush or Glenn Beck will give a factoid or a quote that's so out of context it constitutes dishonesty? Like charging that Soros was a nazi conspirator for pretending to be Christian to survive the war, (nicely detailed here in a dailybeast article by my old school friend Michelle Goldberg.)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/10/glenn-becks-anti-semitic-attack-on-george-soros.html
Well, that's your exact debating move as well. It is perhaps the slimiest, most vile of all Internet flame war tactics to cry "racist" against someone whose words and meaning you needed to excise before quoting.
Besides. I never even said what your accusing me of. Let me ask, is avoiding any admission of error so critical to your ego that you must resort to such bottom feeding tactics used only by the absurd racists that populate RW media? Your post doesent even reference this thread, but an old one; and on a point that you refused to discuss even then.
Now I see why. By refusing to listen to anything past a misunderstood post you seem to feel free to use your misinterpreted opinion as a scarlet letter of some kind. That is without a doubt, the saddest debating style I have yet to see on the whole Internet.
But I like it. It gives me a clear sign whenever a post has utterly ruined your argument; leaving you without any adequate response save slander. I don't usually care about "winning", but you've made it fun.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)That even if your post was entirely true, nothing you wrote in any way refutes the points made and evidence offered in my earlier one.
Huh. Did you happen to notice that?
You just called me names. And now you seem to have run away again.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
pelsar
(12,283 posts)crying "loser" and racist' to two reasonable posts, does not give much credit to such a poster....and i dont believe such a poster and his/her replies should get any kind of defense even a subtle one.....
he/she may be back, but it clearly there is not much to be gained by any discourse
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or don't you know the rulz around these parts 
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however here is a question saying your scenario is real does the IDF pilot even consider the Palestinian kids? are they a concern? I'm not saying he can shoot I'm saying he will without a second thought and his defenders will cry human shields, the kids parents shouldn't let them out of the home unless of course the house gets destroyed too, then it's back to human shields or terrorists within the house or Israeli intelligence said.....
oh and more likely in this scenario it's a drone rather than a helicopter no risking Israeli lives with that one, sit 20km away and kill it's all so easy more like a video game really
any other scenario's?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2013, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)
if one considers israeli pilots as monsters who care little for all human life, who ignore all of those briefings of when one can or cannot shoot, then you can believe that the pilot does not consider it as a factor and will just shoot.
if one considers israelis in general and israeli pilots as educated humans who not only get lectures about right and wrong, about what constitutes a war crime and what doesnt, if one believe that the pilots themselves may spend time discussing the moral dilemmas involved, that one can assume that the pilot does give it a second thought and makes a decision based on his/her own moral values based on the environment.
simple depends upon how one sees israelis...
drones, relativly new, are not always used because of their limited views, they cant for instance see the truck coming around the corner in to the kill zone, whereas the pilot out of corner of his eye will.
or course again it goes back to how you see israelis. If were monsters then of course we use just drones since its just a video game, if were humans, educated and intelligent that actually are tying to balance the moral dilemmas, then its reasonable to assume we use actual pilots who do risk their lives and take on a responsibility for decisions that no one here would ever have the courage to make.
____
the only thing I "win" is bringing either a bit of reality to the discussion here, or perhaps clarification that the harsh reality of moral dilemmas is not a part of this forum and the discussions here are based on simplistic images of black and white, good and evil that have little to do with the actual conflict....or with seeing both sides as made up of humans.....
as far as other scenarios..i've got dozens, some based on experience some based on what I've heard and read, but the problem here is that they all have moral dilemmas as their base, and to understand them, means recognizing the israeli soldier as normal human sometimes a kid making decisions that no one here even wants to hear, let alone believe that they exist
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as I said in the heat of the moment per your scenario the pilot is not trained to ponder on moral dilemmas, that's not his job, his job is to defend Israel or what ever country he's defending nothing else matters right then, and yes IMO he will fire, now in the future will he feel nothing about that action, I think that's where PTSD comes in, because he will feel something about it
as for drones they are being used, they also fire on Palestinians
as for your scenario you delineate the reality for us with of course the outcomes you prefer
pelsar
(12,283 posts)he is trained, we all are to ponder the right and wrong of the decisions, to question the orders if need be. The pilot knows that his decision is also his responsibility. Defending the country does not mean "my country right or wrong' at least not as we're trained.
and in many cases they in fact did not fire....
http://www.seruv.org.il/english/article.asp?msgid=55&type=news
as far as the scenario, that is one of the reasons why for the letter above
you may not like the reality, but that hardly means it doesnt /didn't exist, we don't get the option of closing our eyes and pretending it doesnt exist
nor are israeli soldier mindless kids....who follows orders without thinking, they are very well aware of what is legal and what is not, what they are constantly doing is weighing the rights and wrongs vs moralitys gray areas of life and death vs "rules"
i could give you more examples, but i get the impression, you would rather not know about the moral dilemmas because it make the IDF solider a 3dimensional character and not some simplistic "cut out."
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it's your scenario it was you that said he has seconds to make a decision, and his job is to defend Israeli lives period, sorry you don't like my answer
pelsar
(12,283 posts)he already knows he will be in that position, and he is ready to make his own decision when the time comes...
and his job is defend israel at the sametime he like most IDF soldiers, there are lines he wont cross.
your answer was simply not complete....you seem to refuse to accept the actual environment, and that the training of the pilot is more than just pulling a trigger....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it was you that said the grad was pointed at Israel, that the pilot had no way of knowing whether or not the area it was pointed at was covered by Iron Dome, so it comes down to for the pilot who's kids lives are more important, and we both know the answer, if the decision was already made the pilot would not be there in the first place, the fact that said pilot is there means it has already been decided
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the grads or kassams may or may not do damage....his missile may or may not hurt the kids in the area. He may see a bus enter the kill zone and decide that the balance has changed and he doesnt shoot.
again your making the assumption that the idf pilot is a mindless solider that cant weigh changing circumstances to affect his decision....I realize many think that way about us
but that just not the case, as per the pilots letter i linked to. Clearly they made decisions while in the air, that prompted their letter and they are not the only ones in the IDF that have done so.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I think my reply took you by surprise or something and BTW it's not IDF I'm singling out here, it's any military including the US's
pelsar
(12,283 posts)modern soldiers are trained not to act like robots, they are given the skills and knowledge to make decisions in the field under pressure. The scenarios, when they are known, are given to the soldiers before hand, since they are never the exact same thing in the field, it only gives them a framework to work with..but the actual decisions are made within seconds or less.
the pilots go up, with a mission, not a conclusion....again, you may never accept it, but then it makes it easier to keep ones previous conclusions and not have to actually accept that israeli pilots do infact have a sense of morals that supersede being a mindless autobot.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it's about defending ones own isn't it?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)never has been, thats why israel has pilots and commandos and others refusing to serve or changing jobs, thats why there are so many organizations in israel that involve serving reservists that talk about the morality and about what is and what is not permitted..its hardly a black and white issue.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I had no idea you had favorite shooting scenarios.
IDF sees from a helicopter that a grad missile is being prepared for firing..do I get to ask
what is he looking at exactly? One person, just people not wearing uniforms, is that correct?
No Iron Dome protection, correct? Is it safe to presume this does not apply?
What other systems is the IDF in the helicopter working on simultaneously? He is alone
in the helicopter?
Also, the IDF will not be shooting bullets at the person(s) who are about to set off
the missile..they'll be dropping a missile themselves?
How close does the IDF get to such a target?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)iron dome may or may not be working...some areas are not covered, whether those grads would go in the areas covered is a guess, iron dome is not 100% air raid sirens go off whether or not iron dome is in the area,
what is he looking at?... what appears to be a grad(s), on a launcher in an area where launches have occurred, during a similar time, with people being busy around it....The missile(s) do not say "grad" on them. There may be other IDF systems in the area the "confirm" what he sees, but its never 100%
This particular mission is primary to find missiles before they are launched, "tubes" that point toward the sky.
other systems is he concerned with? anti aircraft missiles, fuel, position, radio chatter of what else is going on in the same airspace, targeting information....
he will shoot a missile, they are more precise then bullets and are safer for the pilot.
distance? several kilometers (he would also be using optical equipment to further define the objects)
he may have two in the helicopter, the pilot and copilot behind him (weapons officer)
_____
and the OP?...what did you expect out of hamas...all theorcratic dictatorships restrict freedom of the press, are you actually surprised?
those few brave who are "resisting" simply won't be doing it for long, hamas and friends simply dont believe in western freedoms, they've made that clear many times.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)this would far more likely be a drone, good optical viewing , little risk to Israeli lives which you tell us are of optimal importance to Israel, same result for Palestinians
pelsar
(12,283 posts)ever back up a car using one of those cameras in the back and not look back? you simply dont have the full picture...of someone running toward the back of the car.
cameras are great when you have multiple cameras looking at a single object from multiple views only then can you get a clear and accurate picture of the environment..which is essential for judgement call....not always possible in gaza.
hence, israel still uses pilots and risk their lives, though drones are also used in certain circumstances.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)possibly more common in the dry season
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the ones flying over gaza have lawn mower type noise....(or at least used to, the lower flying ones)....you really dont see them because they are so small, but you hear them, and they're constant.
could be psych ops..make them all crazy with a 'buzzing" in their ears.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that would be pretty bad
pelsar
(12,283 posts)not loud but constant.... (they have mufflers....)
but that was a few years ago....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)for now. As you said previously, one of your favorites.
A two man operation, one could plausibly take a shot at the person near the grad..one second.
If he misses, he would at least have bought himself another second or two, since the person
or crowd would disperse..at least for a moment or two.
The second soldier fires the missile after assessing he has no other viable options.
In the end, the IDF will not hesitate to shoot.
Wouldn't you agree?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the target is the grad on the launcher....shooting at the the people doesn't stop the missile from being fired, nor does a crowd disperse in a second, and a missile explosion will kill many, and a second will kill more.....
and the second "soldier" is the copilot in the helicopter
in the end the IDF does in fact hesitate shoot.....which is why over 10,000 missiles landed in israel that were launched from gaza
What I said was, there are two soldiers..one could plausibly use a rife to shoot the
person nearest the grad.
On edit: * over 10,000 missiles landed in israel that were launched from gaza
Are you claiming that the IDF could have shot these down and did not?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)we're talking about grads being launched from within built up ares (gaza city) there is no IDF solider within miles from that area. Its a helicopter that is spotting the grad and has to remove it.
______
and those 10,000 missiles? yes many were seen on the launch pad and the pilots did not shoot....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)If that is not at all possible, the IDF fires the missile..children or no children.
Can you give me a better ratio of how many fit your scenario and did not fire, other than "many"?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)snipers cant shoot shit from a helicopter, the damn thing doesnt stay still....thats why helicopters have machine guns and missiles.
numbers of how may pilots didnt shoot?...sorry i dont have that info but just the fact that that pilots quit because of the moral problems signifies that in fact as they progressed to their decision, they probably stopped shooting at one point... (the stuff was in the news when the letter became public)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988904/posts
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Interesting post.
27 out of thousands. I commend them and this man, Air Force Chief Maj.-Gen. Dan Halutz. He'll rot
in hell, if there is one.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)if you count regular soldiers...but that was not the point....whereas these guys made their own decision no longer to be put in a position of that very moral dilemma, they chose to put the risk of the missiles landing and killing israel's as opposed to Palestinians.
the pilots i can understand, since they are actually pulling the trigger
i assume you agree with them..that its better for israeli citizens to take the risk of being killed as opposed to the Palestinians
so it appears you are putting the value of the Palestinians above that of the israelis......
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)i'm asking you...so as far as i understand, you believe that the IAF should not attack the missiles that are about to be launched if they are in urban areas...
is that true or not....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You asked me a question, I answered it.
The IDF would shoot the missile, children or no children, in your scenario..one of your favorites. Am I
obligated to presume your scenario is the only answer to dealing with the rockets?
I'll make this easier for you, I do not believe there is a legitimate military solution to the conflict.
When Hamas is aiming at civilians and they have, they need to be tried for those crimes.
Also, Israel must adhere to laws of war/conflict. With that said, if the strike of a missile as you described
it by the IDF falls under permissible laws, then they have the right to do so.
The 27 IAF have stated a truth, they do not want to participate in illegal operations...not exclusive
to morality for them..as they stated. You added this information, not me. I am commenting on it, now
you wish for me to ignore it.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2013, 03:44 AM - Edit history (3)
i put up the additional information, since i believe the more information one has, the better it is, but that was for you to get a better picture or what actually happens
________________________
Israel must adhere to laws of war/conflict. With that said, if the strike of a missile as you described
it by the IDF falls under permissible laws, then they have the right to do so.
The "laws" of warfare" in turns out are pretty flexible depending upon who is doing the shooting.
As i understand it, obama and NATO are now quite guilty of it and need to be tried for their crimes....but that is not the subject.
____________________________
you are the helicopter pilot, you are the only one to decide if its lawful or not, its your decision....are you going to shoot or not? and if not, do you believe that no pilot should shoot under such circumstances...and what will be the immediate result of such a policy to the israelis in sederot, ashkelon and vica versa
or should your shoot with the consequences to the Palestinians? and vica versa
this is not about next year or post peace, this is about the near future (days, weeks months)....
those are the questions that are now waiting to be answered, the questions the pilots, and others ask themselves... a return to the original
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)J23: The IDF would shoot the missile, children or no children, in your scenario..one of your favorites. Am I
obligated to presume your scenario is the only answer to dealing with the rockets?
When Hamas is aiming at civilians and they have, they need to be tried for those crimes.
Also, Israel must adhere to laws of war/conflict. With that said, if the strike of a missile as you described
it by the IDF falls under permissible laws, then they have the right to do so. ( end )
You told me I was moving the goal posts when I commented on your added info about the 27 IAF letter, now you're
telling me you added it for the sake of more information, which is fine, so don't use it against me to suggest I moved
a goal post.
What rests within my response to the laws of war/conflict do you believe does not answer your question?
These laws exist, and I do believe you said previously the IDF is trained to recognize what is lawful and
what is not. If your scenario with the IDF proceeding to strike, once he makes the decision
he lives with it..if it is decided to be a war crime under international law, then Israel can defend the soldier or
not. Who ordered the operation ( Israel ) are responsible..this possibly becomes a legal matter that is exonerated
or not. Do not confuse the politics of who is examined and hauled off to the ICC with who actually meets the
criteria of war crimes.
Those more politically immune have had their share of scares and there is no statute of limitation on any death
as a result of torture. Most of those responsible are not that old, I will not give up hope one day they may be
dragged to the Hague.
1) George Bush Can't Travel Overseas for Fear of Arrest and Prosecution
February 9, 2011 |
As the news broke on Saturday that former President George W. Bush had abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance this week in Geneva to avoid the risk of arrest on a torture complaint, my first thought was — how humiliating, not only for Bush but, by extension, for all Americans.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149855/george_bush_can%27t_travel_overseas_for_fear_of_arrest_and_prosecution
2) Rumsfeld gets away with it here in the United States, does not mean he is immune abroad.
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Rumsfeld
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701338.html
3) Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni 'cancels London visit over prosecution fears'
Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister, has cancelled a visit to Britain amid reports that pro-Palestinian activist groups might have sought a warrant for her arrest on alleged war crimes charges.
Dec 2009
Mrs Livni, who now leads the Israeli opposition, is the second prominent Israeli in just over two months to abandon trips to London amid a growing campaign across Europe to press charges against officials involved in military action in Gaza.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/6811578/Israeli-opposition-leader-Tzipi-Livni-cancels-London-visit-over-prosecution-fears.html
92 torture tapes were destroyed under Bush's CIA, he had every reason to be afraid of the consequences.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)really? how do you know?...do you have access to the post flight reports? or did you just make up what you dont know ?
i expect an answer to your assertion:_______________________
______
as far as war crimes...was there a trial that I missed?...seems to me there is something in intl law about if people attack from civilian areas, then they are actually responsible for the deaths that occur when they attacked in response, so until there is an actual trial, it cannot be determined if any war crimes were committed by any specific israeli pilot on any specific mission.
but we digress, and your avoiding the moral question:
Hence i repeat: what would you do?
will you risk Palestinians lives or Israeli lives?
and before you say you answered it...you didn't you sided stepped it with gibberish of int'l law:
this is about YOU, what would you do? shoot or not shoot, those are your two options.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)your IDF reserve what would you do? what have you done in the past?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)that i get my answers first....no more avoidance, no more "i already answered that"...blah blah blah....
i want an answer that i can understand
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or gone to jail, that is your answer, I would have taken myself out of the scenario before it began, I know that wasn't one of your choices but it is the truth
pelsar
(12,283 posts)refusniks are a part of the society, and i want them here, i do not want a one dimensional society where everyone thinks the same, acts the same, and conforms to the prescribed/ acceptable behavior. I want citizens who protest the govt, make it change, and change again....
good for you, now i'm waiting on the other one....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what I said about being a refusnik is true that is exactly what I would do now however back in the last century when I was say 19 or 20 looooong ago, my answer would have been quite different, I would have been IDF and I would have fired, time changes things
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i'm a rotten combat soldier...i hesitate (age?, wiser?), i'm not very aggressive. I'm not the kind of guy you want on your "6". In fact the guy (my friend) i like behind me is an aggressive younger guy whole "loves his machine gun". with him protecting my ass, i 'm know i'm safe. i would not want me or someone like me there.
even more...there were times where i felt like "darth veder"....
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)
and i'm hardly alone in my answer, since its pretty much the standard weighing of factors (note this is not during a war, where the weight of the factors will change)
if I believe the missile i'm about to shoot, will also cause the wall separating the grad from the kids will breakdown and shrapnel will in fact kill/wound the kids, then no I wouldnt shoot
if I believe the wall might hold and protect them, then yes. Granted i cannot know if the missile itself will miss, if there will be secondary explosions, if the wall is so old and shoddy if will fall down, but that is the risk involved.
If all of a sudden a bus appears, a wedding shows up, then immediately the environment has changed and then no, i wouldnt shoot.
That would be the balance of thoughts that take about a microsecond to process and i am saying this as a israeli combat soldier in the reserves.
_____
what you never hear about, because its never in the papers, is how many times, we did in fact hold our fire, how many zillions of times we did risk our lives, and sometimes our friends "lost" because of a risk we took, because we hesitated,
we're not that "cut out" black and white soldier that so many prefer to believe in, when that is understood, there will be a better chance for peace, but as long as were considered that, (what so many posters here consider us) then the chances are reduced.
what the posters do here is: 'outsource the morality to the UN, to Intl law, etc. that somebody else should decide in fact what is the moral decision, all the while condemning israel, the soldiers for making tough decisions. They like it both ways: condemn and then "run away to the UN, Intl law for cover...
one thing is obvious to me: the avg israeli 18yr old has more guts than the posters here, he/she wouldnt have a problem discussing the issue, straight on, taking responsibility for their answers
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Your question is repeated here, word for word:
which people get the risk of dying:
Its 2:30 in the afternoon, schools are being let out in israel
IDF helicopter sees a grad(s) being prepared for being fired in the direction of ashkelon-(a major city with multiple hi rises and no shelters for those in the apartments), back in gaza, a mere 50 meters from the grads on the other side of the wall are Palestinian children playing, which may or may not be affected by a missile from the helicopter ...and there are people next to the grads, none are wearing uniforms..
the pilot has a 2 seconds to decide to shoot, while also working other systems....
________
shoot or not shoot? which people get the greater risk of living or dying?
I repeat, I answered you twice.
In response to your question, I do not know what the IDF would do, I guessed based on what info you told me,thus my answer. Shoot the missile, children or no children.
I would not be in that situation personally pelsar, because I would never agree to serve in the IDF under any circumstances.
Let me know when you're done and we can discuss the OP from oberliner and mine.
On edit to add your comment: as far as war crimes...was there a trial that I missed?...seems to me there is something in intl law about if people attack from civilian areas, then they are actually responsible for the deaths that occur when they attacked in response, so until there is an actual trial, it cannot be determined if any war crimes were committed by any specific israeli pilot on any specific mission.
Yes pelsar, this covers a trial, it is inferred, or do you need everything spelled out for you? :
* If your scenario with the IDF proceeding to strike, once he makes the decision
he lives with it..if it is decided to be a war crime under international law, then Israel can defend the soldier or
not. Who ordered the operation ( Israel ) are responsible..this possibly becomes a legal matter that is exonerated
or not. Do not confuse the politics of who is examined and hauled off to the ICC with who actually meets the
criteria of war crimes.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)ok so you wouldnt be in the helicopter...but given what you know, that nothing is certain, what do you believe would be the best choice?
you say you answered, i say you side stepped.....because i still don't know who in your mind gets the risk of being killed: Palestinians or israelis....
perhaps someone who is reading this thread can interpret what you wrote? because clearly i cant: shoot or not? those are the two options: door number 1 or door number 2
In response to your question, I do not know what the IDF would do, I guessed based on what info you told me,thus my answer. Shoot the missile, children or no children.
and where did you get the info from? I dont recall giving anything specific....best guess your inferring from the 27 pilots, correct?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)enough.
You have your answer, you can't comprehend it, that is your intention...obtuse.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and no i cant comprehend what you wrote...what is so difficult about being clear? what are u so afraid of?
its my "favorite scenario" because it puts people like you in a predicament..at best you will give some very vague answer and then claim 'you already answered it" when in fact you've given no answer of any kind just some vague proclamations that mean little when it comes to making a decision.
instead of writing out post after post of how you "answered it" maybe just make it simpler for me and write it in a simpler fashion, like in one sentence?
or i'm willing to hear what someone else understands of your posts.....do you suggest the pilot shoot or not?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)That's a fantasy that you pose a challenge and perhaps a psychologist could explain to you your
need to have a favorite scenario..which you control. Similar to dreams.
My answers are clear, repeated from above: The IDF would shoot the missile, children or no children, in your scenario..one of your favorites.
I already told I would not be in that situation, from previous answer above: I would not be in that situation personally pelsar, because I would never agree to serve in the IDF under any circumstances.
Talk about changing goal posts, you should look in the mirror sometime.
on edit for clarity.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)first its hardly a fantasy scenario...just read why some pilots no longer wished to carry out the missions and look in to the various times kassam shooters were killed with and without collateral damage...the scenario is very real:
but more to the point...it not whether you would be the pilot, nor if you would be in that position, i understand you can't put yourself there...hence the modification of the question, that keeps the same concept:
....so what is the right thing for the pilot to do.
what do you think is the "more moral" thing to do:
yes i know you dont want to give a direct answer, maybe you can't, maybe its 'above your pay scale
its just an exercise in morality, nothing real is going to happen to you no matte what you answer, but be brave and give real answer
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Keep moving those goal posts, you may finally get the response you've been hoping for all along.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)which means the goal posts in fact never changed...you just keep on trying to weasle out of giving a direct answer....
first question asked
which people get the risk of dying:
............
shoot or not shoot? which people get the greater risk of living or dying
last question I asked:
what do you think is the "more moral" thing to do: (shoot or not shoot)
____________________________________________________
Note how the first question, that started this and final question that ended this, are the same: which people get the risk, and in the end, you didnt even have the internet courage to say something like: "I cannot make a decision like that, I wouldnt know how..something like that at least has some honesty in it, what you did was basically wimp away.....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)your objective to begin with.
You have my answers already..you want your answers to your own questions that you posed to me. You'll
need to take a class on how to be clever to accomplish that.
I haven't gone anywhere btw and I am not responsible for your pathology, pelsar.
Enjoy the remainder of your day.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i dont have to be clever.....i just asked a simple and direct question and you simply couldn't/woudn't answer it.
you even mentioned that i 'moved the goal posts" when we see how the very first question and very last question are one and the same, and you can't even acknowledge that....
but i do enjoy the 'round about way" you keep on going to not give a simple answer.
__________________________
i shall ask you why in your pseudo answers you cant start the sentence with:
I believe the most moral action would be_______________
note how the I is in bold, that means your supposed to take "ownership" over what you believe in and not "outsource" the answer to some place else