HRW “Military Analyst” Garlasco’s Nazi Souvenir Fetish...

[Mosby]

HRW “Military Analyst” Garlasco’s Nazi Souvenir Fetish Reinforces Lack of Credibility

(Jerusalem) – As documented in NGO Monitor’s detailed report on HRW, Marc Garlasco, HRW’s “senior military expert” in the “Emergencies Division”, has written numerous reports condemning Israel which combine unreliable Palestinian claims and pseudo-technical analyses. In addition to his HRW work, Garlasco is an active writer on The Guardian website and other blogs. Garlasco’s professional credentials appear to be greatly overstated, and his work contributes to the overall bias and lack of credibility in HRW’s reports on Israel.

Now, Garlasco has also been exposed as an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia and fetishist. Omri Ceren (Mere Rhetoric) writes that he is “obsessed with the color and pageantry of Nazism, has published a detailed 430 page book on Nazi war paraphernalia, and participates in forums for Nazi souvenir collectors.” This activity was not limited to earlier periods in his life but continues in parallel to his work for HRW, much of which focuses on Israel.

This background, when combined with his central role in the condemnations of Israel under false banners of “human rights” violations and “war crimes”, shows that Garlasco is entirely inappropriate as a human rights reporter. His HRW publications and activities include:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/hrw_military_analyst_garlasco_s_nazi_souvenir_fetish_reinforces_lack_of_credibility

He posts at germancombatawards.com as flak88. Yeah, really.

[Psephos]

1. Saw this the other day...something kinda creepy going on there. nt

[atreides1]

2. So he's a collector?

I collect swords and daggers from the Lord of the Rings movies, does that make me Aragorn or Gandalf?

[Chulanowa]

4. No, but it does make you a dirty fucking filthy anti-orcite!

[Kurska]

5. His name flak88 contains nazi symbolics.

H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, and 88 stands heil hitler. This is very common nazi slang polarized by the aryan brotherhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)#As_a_Neo-Nazi_symbol

Granted, there are other uses, but I think anyone with 88 on a forum specify regarding nazi memorabilia can be called a nazi.

[Thothmes]

9. could also refer to the AA verison of the 8.8 cm gun

also refered to as a PaK 88 when configured for anti-tank work.

[Kurska]

16. hmm, very very good point.

I'll take this at face value I suppose, although I'm not convinced it is entirely innocent. Regardless, the original point still stands.

[unpossibles]

6. well, besides the obvious difference between fiction and non-fiction

his screenname, flak88, is rather telling since 88 is a common and well known code among neo-nazi skinheads and other related white power groups.

[Scurrilous]

7. The German 88:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_FlaK_18/36/37/41


One of the most famous guns of WW2.

[unpossibles]

8. true, but it's also a well known and widely used code

by skin heads. Poor choice if it's a coincidence.

[Scurrilous]

3. Human Rights Watch investigator accused of collecting Nazi memorabilia

Watchdog organisation has had tension with Israeli government over criticism of military actions in Gaza

<snip>

"Tension between the Israeli government and Human Rights Watch, the international body that has been critical of the Israeli military's tactics in Gaza, has intensified over revelations that one of the watchdog's investigators is a collector of Nazi memorabilia.

Marc Garlasco, a former Pentagon intelligence officer, has reported for Human Rights Watch on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the two Israeli wars in Lebanon and Gaza. He is described as the watchdog's senior military expert.

It has now emerged that he is also an avid collector of German and American wartime memorabilia, including awards badges handed out to soldiers working in the anti-aircraft Flak units. He is the author of a 430-page book on the Flak badges of the Wehrmarcht, and a regular contributor to two internet bulletin boards used by military collectors under his moniker Flak 88.

Several pro-Israeli bloggers have latched on to Garlasco's hobby, questioning whether it is appropriate for a human rights investigator involved in the Middle East. They have unearthed one blogpost in which Flak 88 writes: "That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!"

In another Garlasco is shown in a photograph wearing a jumper bearing an Iron Cross. A correspondent comments on the picture: "Love the sweatshirt Mark . Not one I could wear here in germany though (well I could but it would be a lot of hassle)."

Garlasco replies: "Everyone thinks it is a biker shirt!"

Human Rights Watch has responded to the mounting internet attacks on Garlasco by insisting that the implication he is a Nazi sympathiser is demonstrably false, absurd and an affront to serious military historians.

It points out that his grandfather was a conscript in the German anti-aircraft units, hence Garlasco's interest, while another relative was an American B-17 crewman. In the foreword to his book, Garlasco writes "the war was horrible and cruel, Germany lost and for that we should be thankful".

The watchdog contends that the attack on their investigator is part of a sustained campaign by the Israeli government to discredit its attempts to uncover human rights abuses committed by the Israeli Defence Forces. "The Israeli government is trying to eliminate the space for legitimate criticism of the conduct of the IDF, and this is the latest salvo in that campaign," said Iain Levine, the watchdog's programme director."

more

[azurnoir]

10. If you can't kill or disprove the message kill the messanger

this cheap smear campaign has devolved into silliness

[Mosby]

11. I think it's suggestive of a credibility problem at HRW

Moreover the full NGO Monitor report on HRW clearly shows the systemic bias of the organization towards Israel.

EXPERTS OR IDEOLOGUES? A SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF HRW’S FOCUS ON ISRAEL

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/hrw.pdf

[Violet_Crumble]

12. How exactly do you define 'credibility problem'?

I have some concerns with the way you appear to be ignoring that this is part of the campaign against human rights groups that the Israeli govt was very open in admitting it was doing, and more importantly that you appear to be ignoring the massive credibility problem of NGO Monitor itself. It's very telling that they're doing this *shoot the messenger* thing where they seem to be operating on half-truths and ommissions and that they also complain about EVERY criticism of Israel by any human rights group. So where exactly is their credibility?

on edit: I just realised this is all coming from some fucking lunatic on a blog. Enough said...

[Mosby]

13. HRW obviously did not investigate Garlasco's background

and work history before hiring him. One of the sites he posts at has over 8000 posts from him. This lack of employee qualifications/standards impacts HRW credibility - it shows that they value ideology over professional qualifications.

I haven't read through the entire NGO Monitor report yet, but this report uses empirical methods to look for bias in reporting (like how often certain words appear in their reports) the results speak for themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. You didn't answer the question I asked...

I'm already aware that yr blindly believing every word you read in the OP, but that's not what I asked you about. Could you please go back and try answering what I asked you?

I certainly hope yr not going to try to deny that NGO Monitor have a massive credibility problem and are incredibly biased?

on edit: I'm also a bit disturbed that you'd have no problem at all with some lunatic blogger basically stalking someone. It's damn creepy if you read the blog this has originally come from. I wish people would focus on the message rather than embracing obsessive attacks on people who work for human rights organisations....

[Kurska]

18. Here let me, One blog post "That is so cool! The leather SS Jacket makes my blood go cold, so COOL!"

"In another Garlasco is shown in a photograph wearing a jumper bearing the Iron cross"

Come on Violet_Crumble, you're a intelligent person, you're logical can you really not see how this might give someone a credibility gap in investigating the "war crimes" of the jewish state?

None of us can comment on just how much HRW knew before hand, but jeez could they do a better investigation on their people.

source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/human-rights-watch-israel-nazihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/human-rights-watch-israel-nazi

[Violet_Crumble]

25. But you didn't answer my question either....

He collects military stuff, whether it's German or Allied. That doesn't make someone a Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser or means they lack credibility in what they're employed to do. It makes them a boring geek for collecting boring military crap, and probably a bit stupid to use his real name online in any capacity apart from work seeing as how there are nutters out there like that blogger. I'm just finding the hysterical carrying on of some obsessive and obscure blogger and the Israel-Is-Always-Right brigade at NGO-Monitor to be a bit amusing, considering their complete lack of credibility and objectivity....

[Kurska]

27. Do you have nothing to say about those quotes?

I think the quotes are exactly why he lacks credibility.

I'm curious will you flat out say you think it is appropriate for someone who wears Iron cross jackets and raves over SS jackets to work investigating the actions of vastly jewsish IDF?

[Violet_Crumble]

29. And you still haven't answered my question....

I don't see where he's said or done anything wrong...

btw, 'the actions of jews'? You really shouldn't say 'jews' when you mean 'Israel' and visa versa. For one, it's against the forum rules, and secondly, HRW and other human rights groups investigate the actions of the IDF, not of Jews.

[Kurska]

30. Fair enough you're right, plenty of druze, christians and even arabs serve in the IDF

I'll fix that right now.

And about your question.

I'll answer yours if you will answer mine.

I'll even go first

"I don't see where he's said or done anything wrong"

Nothing, illegal thats for sure. However, I'd say he probably violated the trust of alot of people by taking a job that he knew he would be hard pressed to perform if his hobbies and interests ever became public knowledge.

Now

"I'm curious will you flat out say you think it is appropriate for someone who wears Iron cross jackets and raves over SS jackets to work investigating the actions of the vastly jewish IDF?"

[Violet_Crumble]

31. It's the IDF. Putting 'vastly jewish' in front of it is just weird...

...calculated, but weird. I'd just be a bit careful there, because I can think how that sort of thing could be a turn around and bite you on the bum sort of thing, like I could start referring to 'vastly jewish only roads' in the West Bank and a whole bunch of other things which would quite rightly annoy people, but seeing as how you'd set a precedent on the whole 'vastly jewish' thing, well I'd throw my hands in the air, act all innocent, point in yr general direction and say 'yeah, but he started it!' :)

I have answered yr question. You even reposted my answer, which was: "I don't see where he's said or done anything wrong". I can't get much more clearer than that. I even said I found the collecting of military stuff from WWII to be pretty high on the boring geek scale. No-one's explained yet how collecting military stuff from WWII makes it so he's hard pressed to perform his duties or who's trust he's violated. The one's who are screeching hysterically and in some cases labelling him a Nazi (saw that on a blog a bit earlier) didn't trust him anyway, and seem to have an irrational hatred for him and anyone else who works for any human rights group that is ever critical of Israel....

btw, if you don't want to answer the question I asked many posts ago now, just say so....

[Kurska]

32. Well there you go.

Thats the fundemental diffrence, not only do I think such a person shouldn't be employed by HRW because of how sensitive something like that is, but that the man won't be taken seriously hence forth (especially by Israelis). We can disagree on that, I apparently think it is a much bigger deal then you do, we will see I suppose.

One thing before I talk about HRW. I said vastly jewish because the IDF is just that, made up by a very large majority of Jews, I think vastly jewish is a very technical way of describing the IDF. Trying to describe the unique jewish nature of Israel and the IDF without excluding the myriad of minorities in both is tricky. Sometimes it takes very calculated careful language to get what you actually mean across.

The bit about human rights watch you mean?

I think the credibility gulf be it real of imagined is there atleast between HRW and the Israeli government. The Israeli government already views most HRW reports skeptically, I'm sure this news isn't going to improve that lack of mutual respect any.

Whether HRW has a credibility problem with Israelis or the world at large I can't answer. All I can say is this isn't earth shattering news for HRW (every organization has bad eggs), but it isn't good news for them.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. My question was about the 'credibility' of NGO Monitor...

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was responding to someone else who was attacking the credibility of HRW while appearing to have no issues at all with the credibility and objectivity of NGO Monitor....

I think the disagreement between us is that I don't think there's any insensitivity in collecting WWII military stuff unless it's only of Nazi Germany stuff and it's out of being sympathetic to Nazism. I've seen you say in another post that you know Mr Garlasco isn't a Nazi sympathiser and there's no evidence that he wanted the Axis powers won WWII (btw, there's very strong and concrete evidence that he's very thankful they didn't win), so I can't see where his collecting WWII crap is any different than, say, the War Memorial here collecting and displaying it, which it does...


I said vastly jewish because the IDF is just that, made up by a very large majority of Jews, I think vastly jewish is a very technical way of describing the IDF. Trying to describe the unique jewish nature of Israel and the IDF without excluding the myriad of minorities in both is tricky. Sometimes it takes very calculated careful language to get what you actually mean across.

Okay, but I wonder how many microseconds it'll take for someone to turn up objecting when I follow that example and start talking about 'vastly jewish only roads' in the West Bank ;)

[Kurska]

38. Well the last statment wouldn't really work.

"Vastly only" are two adjectives that doesn't work together it is like saying "slow stopped cars" one is a degree of speed and the other is the absolute lack of it.

[shira]

43. Violet, the problem with credibility is far greater with HRW than NGO-Monitor

After all, NGO-Monitor is pretty clear about their own mission - to fight NGO demonization of Israel.

HRW claims to be an impartial and unbiased organization dedicated to the human rights of all (including Hamas Palestinian shields).

=========

Garlasco and HRW lose all credibility when they make preposterous claims that Hamas doesn't deliberately use human shields as their main strategy when antagonizing Israeli civilians. I'm pretty certain that you disagree with HRW (and in fairness, AI as well) when they make this absurd claim.

B'tselem disagrees with them:

B'Tselem recognizes the complexity of combat in a densely populated area against armed groups that do not hesitate to use illegal means and find refuge within the civilian population.....B'Tselem focuses on Israel's human rights obligations. However, the organization states that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Hamas’ method of combat and treatment of the Palestinian civilian population affects the legality of Israeli attacks and the injury they caused to civilians....It is undisputed that application of these principles in the Gaza Strip is complex, given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and any error could be fatal. In addition, it appears that Hamas members systematically breached these principles.... Indeed, it is not exact science and commanders in the field must make rapid decisions while often lacking full knowledge of the facts.

This objectivity is completely absent in HRW's reports, for fairly obvious reasons if one is determined to demonize Israel at all costs.

==========

The commander of the British forces of Aghanistan (Colonel Kemp) disagrees with HRW:

“I think – I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza. “When you look at the number of civilian casualties that have been caused, that perhaps doesn’t sound too credible – I would accept that. “However, Hamas, the enemy they have been fighting, has been trained extensively by Iran and by Hezbollah, to fight among the people, to use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield. “Hamas factor in the uses of the population as a major part of their defensive plan. So even though as I say, Israel, the IDF, has taken enormous steps - and I can tell you about some of those if you’re interested - to reduce civilian casualties, it is impossible, it is impossible to stop that happening when the enemy has been using civilians as a human shield.

He gives Israel more credit than the Allied forces, including his own British troops in Afghanistan - and he realizes first hand the shielding strategies of his enemies in Afghanistan - as they are the same as Hamas strategies.

And you don't think HRW has a major credibility problem?

I don't see why anyone should take them seriously on anything I/P related.

Why do you?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. There's no problem with the credibility of HRW...

Israel and it's supporters aren't unique in this regard when it comes to attacking HRW and other human rights groups. The US and conservative 'Yr with us or yr against us' types used to attack human rights groups credibility when it came to human rights violations by the US led forces. Indonesia and its supporters used to do a lot of bitching and moaning along the same lines regarding their actions in East Timor. And let's not get started on the highly oiled and organised pro-China battalions that swing into action whenever Tibet gets a mention. ..

I'm not sure where those quotes you posted are from and I'm not sure what context they're in, or even what they have to do with anything. At a glance, it appears to be saying someone doesn't agree with something HRW said? So what? I doubt there's a single organisation out there that more than a few people don't agree with on something...

NGO-Monitor are a bunch of extremely biased folk who attack each and every NGO that dares to utter criticism of the Israeli govt. I'm really not sure why anyone would take that bunch of twits seriously....


Protecting what few human rights the Palestinian people have is NOT demonising Israel, btw. And it's because I think the Palestinian people do deserve the same freedoms and rights as Israelis or even ourselves enjoy, and the major problems I have with the way they're treated by Israel that I take groups like B'Tselem, AI and HRW pretty damn seriously....

[shira]

45. good, you take B'tselem seriously - let's work with that then

"B'Tselem recognizes the complexity of combat in a densely populated area against armed groups that do not hesitate to use illegal means and find refuge within the civilian population.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3774217,00.html

HRW has never once recognized this complexity of combat for the IDF and denies that Hamas deliberately finds refuge within civilian populations.

As an Israeli organization, B'Tselem focuses on Israel's human rights obligations. However, the organization states that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Hamas’ method of combat and treatment of the Palestinian civilian population affects the legality of Israeli attacks and the injury they caused to civilians.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090208.asp

HRW has never once articulated that Hamas' method of combat and treatment of Palestinian civilians within Gaza affects the legality of Israeli attacks and any injury that the IDF causes to civilians.

=======

Do you agree with those quotes from B'tselem above - that contradict HRW 'findings'?

=======

ETA:
There's no question NGO-Monitor is biased - their mission is to combat demonization of Israel.

NGO Monitor's objective is to end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/articles.php?type=about

HRW is not supposed to be politically and ideologically biased against any particular states or nations.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I'm not sure what you think yr working on, Shira...

I'm not saying this to get up yr nose, but I have noticed that you've made claims prior to this that HRW and AI have never condemned Hezbollah or Hamas, and that was incorrect. I haven't read everything HRW has ever said to know for myself, and I doubt you have either, so I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe that claim without having more knowledge than I do....

I thought I already said in the post yr replying to that I don't see where there's a problem when one organisation disagrees with another. It happens all the time to all organisations. In this case I respect both HRW and B'Tselem, and I'm sure they don't say things that are in synch with each other all the time, and wouldn't expect them to....

NGO-Monitor claims that's what their mission is, but if you look at what they attack, it's just about every human rights group who works to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people. And doing that isn't demonising Israel...

[shira]

47. i'm looking for HRW's exact quote of no evidence during OCL for Hamas use of shields

Until I find that, do you agree with the B'tselem quotes about the complex situations the IDF faces while combatting Hamas - and that IDF actions - as well as the legality of those actions - are based on Hamas' deliberate use of the Palestinian population?

--------

ETA:

This isn't about a little disagreement between organizations. Either Hamas did or did not deliberately use Palestinians as their primary strategy - which explains nearly all of the IDF's actions and the legality of those actions. If HRW chooses to ignore Hamas' main strategy, they are dishonestly decontextualizing the situation and their reports are the farthest things from being objective or honest.

As for NGO-Monitor, do you believe it's a bad idea for any organization to attack allegedly 'objective' NGO's for their political and ideological agendas?

[shira]

48. found some quotes from HRW regarding "no evidence" of Hamas shielding

1. White Phosphorus Report:

In the cases documented in the report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence of Hamas using human shields in the vicinity at the time of the attacks. In some areas Palestinian fighters appear to have been present, but this does not justify the indiscriminate use of white phosphorus in a populated area.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes

2. Drone Report:

In the six cases documented in the report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Palestinian fighters were present in the immediate area of the attack at the time.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/30/israel-misuse-drones-killed-civilians-gaza

3. White Flag Report:

In the 11 killings documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the civilian victims were used by Palestinian fighters as human shields or were shot in the crossfire between opposing forces. The civilian victims were in plain view and posed no apparent security threat.

==============

Those are the 3 major reports HRW has released on OCL and if you read them then you should have noticed that not once did they articulate anything like what B'tselem did. In fact, HRW contradicts itself in case #1 above, when in the next line they say Palestinian fighters were present. In case #2 with the oxygen cannisters, if the IDF knew that was a bad hit then why would they publish the video? This appears to be an honest mistake in a complex situation. In case #3, there's this video of a Hamas combatant deliberately using a white flag and civilians for shielding, which completely destroys HRW's claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJgfZ9_6miE

These are not minor mistakes or disagreements with B'tselem.

It's quite clear HRW wants others to believe that the situation for the IDF in Gaza is not complex and that Hamas actions do not have any affect on the legality of IDF responses. HRW wants people to believe the IDF deliberately and illegally targets civilians. The way they do this is by taking Hamas' responsibility out of the equation. I quoted the British Commander of UK troops in Afghanistan for a reason. I'm also quoting Marc Galasco of HRW again, for the same reason....

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

Garlasco knows full well what the Commander of the UK forces in Afghanistan (Colonel Kemp) is fully aware of, but HRW - and Garlasco himself - deliberately omit this supremely important detail.

======

ETA:

4. From HRW's most recent report condemning Hamas for their actions during OCL:

While Human Rights Watch found no clear practice by Palestinian armed groups to deliberately use civilians to shield rocket launches from counterattack, it found they frequently violated the separate duty under the laws of war to take all feasible precautions to avoid endangering civilians when they launched rockets from densely populated areas.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/06/gazaisrael-hamas-rocket-attacks-civilians-unlawful

HRW, unlike B'tselem, doesn't attribute to Hamas a systematic and deliberate strategy of using the human population of Gaza as shields (they condemn individual militants - not Hamas as an organization) and they certainly do not mention the complexity of war and legality of actions for the IDF when it responds to such Hamas attacks.

They are in full denial, Violet.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Yes. HRW found no evidence in those cases. Not sure what yr point is...

I've said more than once now that it's not unusual for one organisation to not say the same thing as another.* Please don't ignore what I say....

What is the purpose of this, Shira? I'm already aware that you possess a fervent dislike of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but it's almost as though yr trying to convince me to share yr attitudes. If that's the case, I just want to warn you that yr wasting yr time...

*Though in the case of what you've posted, B'Tselem are talking about one thing and HRW are talking about another...

[shira]

52. it's not just those cases - it's for the entire OCL

Did you miss #4 at the bottom of post #48? That was from their most recent report focusing on Hamas warcrimes and they repeated the "no evidence" claim - but this time for the entire conflict, not just in various cases.

I've said more than once now that it's not unusual for one organisation to not say the same thing as another.* Please don't ignore what I say....

I think we need clarification here. Do you think the difference b/w B'tselem and HRW is not such a big deal or that it's just not significant at all?

*Though in the case of what you've posted, B'Tselem are talking about one thing and HRW are talking about another...

Can you be specific? What are the differences, as you see them, between the 2 organizations?

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Sorry for the extra post but the editing time had elapsed...

I've just read through the B'Tselem report that contained the quote you posted. I'll post a link to the complete report, and could you please point out the bit where B'Tselem says that Hamas used human shields during OCL? They say that's what the IDF claims, and go on to say that 'if they were indeed committed, their perpetrators are responsible for grave breaches of international humanitarian law.'

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200902_Operation_Cast_Lead_Position_paper_Eng.pdf

Reading this report in full is giving a very different view of what B'Tselem's stance is than the selective snippet you posted. They are definately not very far in what they're saying from what other human rights groups like AI and HRW have said...

[shira]

53. okay, from this report....

from page 3...

As an Israeli organization, B’Tselem focuses on the acts of Israel and its human rights
responsibilities; accordingly, this document does not address the conduct of the
Palestinian side in the fighting. However, B’Tselem states at the outset that Hamas
committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Directing rockets at a
civilian population, shooting at soldiers from inside civilian neighborhoods, while
endangering the lives of the residents, storing weapons in civilian structures, and
execution of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel are all absolutely
forbidden.

We see in this paragraph several things missing from HRW reports.

1. From the "outset" (their words) B'tselem is implicitly stating that the IDF's actions are based on Hamas' illegal combat strategies, and therefore the legality behind IDF strikes is based on this complexity.

2. They point to Hamas, not to various militants or small groups of militants - whereas HRW states there is no evidence that the organization Hamas uses this as a primary strategy.

Here is what I quoted from another B'tselem press release regarding this report:

"As an Israeli organization, B'Tselem focuses on Israel's human rights obligations. However, the organization states that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Hamas’ method of combat and treatment of the Palestinian civilian population affects the legality of Israeli attacks and the injury they caused to civilians."

There is no difference between what B'tselem wrote in the report and what they wrote in their press release. This is what HRW (and AI) continually denies.

===========

from page 5 of their report...

that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and any error could be
fatal. In addition, it appears that Hamas members systematically breached these
principles. Indeed, it is not exact science and commanders in the field must make
rapid decisions while often lacking full knowledge of the facts.

Compare to this from ynet:

"B'Tselem recognizes the complexity of combat in a densely populated area against armed groups that do not hesitate to use illegal means and find refuge within the civilian population.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3774217,00.html

Again, B'tselem premises their reports with this information and therefore provides context for IDF actions while HRW both denies Hamas' strategy and does not give the IDF any benefit of the doubt for its actions - leaving their readers to conclude the worst about the IDF.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Did you read the rest of that paragraph?

Here's what you didn't post: 'Israeli officials also contend that Hamas fighters forced civilians to serve as human shields, that they used ambulances to move from one hiding place to another, and that they hid inside hospitals. These acts are also forbidden, and if they were indeed committed, their perpetrators are responsible for grave breaches of
international humanitarian law.'

Do you understand what they're saying here? They're not saying they found evidence of civilians being used as human shields. They're saying Israeli officials have made that claim, and 'if they were indeed committed, their perpetrators are responsible for grave breaches of international humanitarian law.'

You appear to be saying that B'Tselem thinks that the IDF's attacks were legal because Hamas do illegal things so that makes it okay to attack. That's not what they imply or say at all. From the same report (in fact the next paragraph to the partial paragraph you posted):

'International humanitarian law is not based on reciprocity, and obligation to comply with it does not depend on the other side’s compliance.2 Thus, the fact that Hamas
breached international humanitarian law does not grant Israel the right to breach it, even if the violations by Hamas make compliance more difficult. Indeed, both during
and after the operation, Israeli officials – military and other – contended that all their actions were carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law and were
approved by military legal advisors and by the Attorney General.'

I notice you didn't answer the question I asked you. Do you need me to repeat it?

[shira]

56. I did, but the IDF allegations are in addition to what B'tselem reports all by themselves

B'tselem is not basing what they state entirely on IDF allegations.

And I agree that just because Hamas acts illegally, that does not give the IDF permission to do the same - however, it's not honest to report on IDF actions as if the situation is not complex and IDF actions are not based on Hamas' illegal strategy.

=====

Yes, please repeat any question you want me to answer.

My question to you, please - do you personally believe Hamas as an organization deliberately chose as their primary strategy to use the Gaza population as a shield in their war against Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. No, they're not...

Where in that report did B'Tselem state they had evidence of any of that? They didn't, which is why they said *if* the acts the IDF claimed had been committed, they'd be grave breaches of international humanitarian law....

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that IDF actions are based on Hamas' illegal strategy. B'Tselem along with all other human rights groups repeatedly state that regardless of the illegality of what Hamas does, the IDF is obligated to react in ways that are legal....

The question I asked you that was overlooked was: 'What is the purpose of this, Shira? I'm already aware that you possess a fervent dislike of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but it's almost as though yr trying to convince me to share yr attitudes. If that's the case, I just want to warn you that yr wasting yr time...' I'll reiterate that last point as I'm not really warming to yr debate style where you ask me to agree with you on things that are very obviously part of what we're supposed to be debating...

No, I don't believe that Hamas chose that as a primary strategy at all. And the attack on Gaza by the IDF wasn't a war, btw...

[shira]

59. of course they did - check out what they state "from the outset"

that is B'tselem speaking for themselves - their own admission - before quoting anything from the IDF. See the quote at the bottom of this post.

What I mean by IDF actions being based on Hamas illegal strategy is that when Hamas uses the population as a shield and the IDF responds, context must be taken into consideration. It is completely dishonest not to report on the circumstances of the situation - for example:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a06_1231310126

So if the IDF happened to respond to this by killing 2 terrorists and 1 civilian, it wouldn't be fair to only report that civilian death as if the citizen were unarmed, minding their own business, and that the IDF should have acted more carefully. There's no question the fault lies with the terrorists who used that person as a shield. It's possible that the IDF could have acted more carefully, but without stating that the situation is complex (maybe these terrorists were headed for another missile launcher and they were dragging an unwilling civilian shield) that's dishonest.

'What is the purpose of this, Shira? I'm already aware that you possess a fervent dislike of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but it's almost as though yr trying to convince me to share yr attitudes. If that's the case, I just want to warn you that yr wasting yr time...'

I'm not asking you to share my attitude - only to agree to certain facts based on hard evidence. If PCHR or HRW claims a Palestinian is a civilian when there is evidence that person was involved with Hamas, armed at the time of death, photo-evidence exists showing he was a militant, he's claimed by Hamas as one of their warriors, etc... then why accept that he was just a civilian like you or me?

Do you not believe Hamas chose human-shielding as a primary strategy only because you trust HRW and AI when they make those claims?

As for B'tselem, once again:

However, B’Tselem states at the outset that Hamas
committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Directing rockets at a
civilian population, shooting at soldiers from inside civilian neighborhoods, while
endangering the lives of the residents, storing weapons in civilian structures, and
execution of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel are all absolutely
forbidden.

That's Betselem's own words, from the outset - they are not based on any "IFs" by the IDF - this is what they are saying happened without any question.

It appears now that you see Betselem's POV as being equivalent (on human-shields) to HRW and AI, whereas before you wrote that it's not unusual for one organization to not say the same thing as another. So is Betselem saying the same thing as HRW and AI, or something different? And if different, who do you believe?

[Violet_Crumble]

63. No, they didn't. It's only the IDF that claimed they used human shields...

B'Tselem listed what breaches of international humanitarian law Hamas committed, and I've seen HRW condemn the same breaches, but using human shields wasn't amongst them. What the IDF claimed in the following sentences was where human shields was mentioned and that's why B'Tselem said *if* those acts had been committed, not that they had been committed...

In an earlier post you acknowledged that any illegal actions by Hamas does not give the IDF justification to carry out acts that are illegal themselves. So why are you now saying that Hamas' illegal actions must be taken into consideration? That's a bit contradictory...

I don't bother watching videos when it comes to the conflict unless they're from a reputable source. A source that labels things 'Palestinian Muslim terrorists' doesn't appear to be all that reputable, and seeing like with photos it's too difficult to know whether what's being watched is authentic, I give that stuff a miss...

Shira, yr idea of what's *hard evidence* is quite different from that of most other people I know. I'm not saying that to be hostile, that's just the way it is. I'm not sure at all why you need me to agree with you...

Evidence that a person was or is involved with Hamas does NOT make them a combatant. Being directly involved in combat is what makes someone a combatant and strips them of the protections a civilian has. I posted what B'Tselem said on that not once, but twice in another thread, so have you forgotten what they said, or do you just disagree with it? I'd think carefully before disagreeing with it, as then the same standard must be held to Israelis when it comes to the IDF in deciding whether they're civilians or not...

No, I don't believe Hamas chose using human shields as a primary strategy because I use common-sense when looking at what happened....

Of course it's not unusual for one organisation to not think the same as another, and I don't know why you think it should be otherwise. You haven't shown me that B'Tselem is saying anything different than HRW and AI when it comes to the use of human shields...

[shira]

67. depends on the definition of human shields, doesn't it?

It appears HRW and AI (not sure about B'tselem yet) have a very narrow definition of the term human shield. They say they "found no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants, or prevented them from leaving commandeered buildings."

Aside from the fact there is evidence of the above occuring, their definition is quite narrow - because under such a definition Hamas can fire rockets on school grounds or in between crowded apartment buildings - and so long as they're not directing people into those areas or forcing them to stay there, that doesn't count as using human shields.

That's utterly disingenuous, whether B'tselem uses the same definition or not.

The UN Glossary of Peacekeeping Terms offers the following definition:

human shield is any person who, under the laws of war is considered a non-combattant and as such protected from deliberate attack (civilians, POWs, etc.) but who is used by one side as a hostage to deter the other side from striking a particular military targetand risking killing the hostages; the side using “human shields” gambles on the otherside’s reluctance to violate the laws of war and on its fear of the moral and politicalopprobrium usually attached to such violations; the use of human shields can take theform of a) placing civilians or prisoners in or near legitimate military targets (bases,bunkers, weapons factories, etc.) or b) placing artillery batteries and other offensiveweapons in the midst of the civilian population, particularly such buildings as hospitals,schools, churches, etc., or residential neighborhoods, or c) for non-uniformed armedgroups, firing at their adversary from among a crowd of civilians

the video I linked for you - that you refuse to look at even though it's titled "TV footage of Hamas 120mm mortar crew operating within Jabalya" - is a prime example of (b) that HRW and AI refuse to categorize as using human shields, and of course if (c) were to happen, HRW and AI would also refuse to label that as human shielding, even though the UN defines such actions that way. Any Israeli defensive strike against a launching site within Jabalya (a refugee camp) should not be knee-jerk reported as some indiscriminate and murderous IDF attack. It is in no way illegal for the iDF to fire back at a launching site, no matter where it is - and the responsibility for any deaths lies with Hamas.

What do you think of HRW and AI's definition of what constitutes human shields?

Hamas uses civilians in order to draw fire, not deter it - call it human shielding or not - it's totally repulsive and illegal - and dishonest to the max to automatically accuse Israel of war crimes when responding to such a strategy that inevitably leads to civilian deaths. In fact, not holding Hamas accountable for such actions makes HRW and AI accomplices to Hamas illegal actions. Why should Hamas stop when they can continue doing this and chuckle at the fact that Israel takes most of the blame for Palestinian deaths? No one pro-Palestinian should defend anyone whose condemnations - in effect - condone Hamas actions. So long as Hamas is not really responsible for Palestinian deaths - and Israel is - they will continue to employ their illegal strategy (which for some absurd reason HRW and AI refuse to label human-shielding). Besides being disgustingly immoral, allowing for this and putting the blame on Israel is a gross distortion of international law - and does nothing to protect Palestinians that these human rights groups purport to defend. Hamas will only continue to use civilians to draw fire - and certainly do nothing to deter it.

==========

To answer you,

1. My point about IDF actions in response to Hamas is that they are legal when responding to Hamas' illegal actions.
2. I agree that a Hamas cook or singer shouldn't count as a combatant, but if Hamas lists them as a warrior, has photos of them in uniform with nasty weaponry, etc... why should I believe they count as civilians like you and me?

[Violet_Crumble]

71. No, not really.

How they appear to be defining human shields makes much more sense and is more logical than how I see you trying to define it yrself.

Shira, you weren't there in Gaza, so I wish you'd stop speaking as though you've got more authority to know what happened there than people who actually went there to investigate what happened. Just because you personally want to believe something happened does not make it evidence....

Please don't misrepresent why I told you I don't waste my time on videos posted by nasty bigots like that one. Here's what I said again: 'I don't bother watching videos when it comes to the conflict unless they're from a reputable source. A source that labels things 'Palestinian Muslim terrorists' doesn't appear to be all that reputable, and seeing like with photos it's too difficult to know whether what's being watched is authentic, I give that stuff a miss..." If you have a problem with that, please try to address what I said and don't ignore it....

My point about IDF actions in response to Hamas is that they are legal when responding to Hamas' illegal actions.

No, they're not, and you appeared to acknowledge earlier on that the illegal actions of one does not justify the other doing something illegal. I don't really understand why you appear to be changing what yr saying now...


I agree that a Hamas cook or singer shouldn't count as a combatant, but if Hamas lists them as a warrior, has photos of them in uniform with nasty weaponry, etc... why should I believe they count as civilians like you and me?

I don't really care what you choose to believe. B'Tselem has been very clear about what constitutes a combatant, and that makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is you holding that attitude about what makes a Palestinian a combatant but I bet you don't hold that same attitude about what makes an Israeli a combatant...

[shira]

78. this is going nowhere - thanks for your time

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Then why did you just start up the human shields thing again in another part of the thread?

In post 85? If you want to continue the discussion, please address what I said in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=286414&mesg_id=286943 rather than ending the discussion and just trying to start up a new discussion about it in another part of the thread...

[shira]

91. let's try again, see how it goes - okay?

How they appear to be defining human shields makes much more sense and is more logical than how I see you trying to define it yrself.

But the UN defines human shields differently. See post #85 on their own glossary of defined terms. Why do you trust HRW and AI's definition over the UN, aside from some appeal to their authority - a logical fallacy? Also, in post #85 you will see that HRW adopts the UN definition with regards to Sri Lanka's LTTE, but not for Hamas. That's what we call a double-standard, isn't it? One for the LTTE (an example of human shielding) and one for Hamas (not an example even though it's identical to what the LTTE does).

Shira, you weren't there in Gaza, so I wish you'd stop speaking as though you've got more authority to know what happened there than people who actually went there to investigate what happened. Just because you personally want to believe something happened does not make it evidence....

We're talking definitions now and HRW is inconsistant with theirs for "human shields". See above.

Please don't misrepresent why I told you I don't waste my time on videos posted by nasty bigots like that one. Here's what I said again: 'I don't bother watching videos when it comes to the conflict unless they're from a reputable source. A source that labels things 'Palestinian Muslim terrorists' doesn't appear to be all that reputable, and seeing like with photos it's too difficult to know whether what's being watched is authentic, I give that stuff a miss..." If you have a problem with that, please try to address what I said and don't ignore it....

But you have no evidence anything is wrong with that video. As far as anyone knows, it's directly from Hamas TV. It appears you reject anything that just doesn't agree with your own worldview, like PMW and MEMRI videos, etc. You don't like the source, so you claim whatever evidence they bring is bogus, without any proof.

My point about IDF actions in response to Hamas is that they are legal when responding to Hamas' illegal actions.

No, they're not, and you appeared to acknowledge earlier on that the illegal actions of one does not justify the other doing something illegal. I don't really understand why you appear to be changing what yr saying now...

They are legal - the IDF has a right to defend Israeli citizens from rockets, even when they are fired from dense civilian populations like in the video I gave you the link for - an action clearly defined as human shielding according to UN definitions and HRW definition regarding Sri Lanka. As long as the IDF is careful and their defense is measured and proportionate, it's legal.

I agree that a Hamas cook or singer shouldn't count as a combatant, but if Hamas lists them as a warrior, has photos of them in uniform with nasty weaponry, etc... why should I believe they count as civilians like you and me?

I don't really care what you choose to believe. B'Tselem has been very clear about what constitutes a combatant, and that makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is you holding that attitude about what makes a Palestinian a combatant but I bet you don't hold that same attitude about what makes an Israeli a combatant...

So if B'tselem claims Mr. X is a civilian but there are pictures of him in combat gear with heavy weaponry, Hamas claims him as one of their warriors, he is mentioned as a martyr or resister by another Palestinian human rights org, and he's idolized on one of Hamas' websites, you say he's a civilian like you and me? Because B'tselem says so?

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I don't really see the point in this, but if you insist...

But the UN defines human shields differently. See post #85 on their own glossary of defined terms. Why do you trust HRW and AI's definition over the UN, aside from some appeal to their authority - a logical fallacy? Also, in post #85 you will see that HRW adopts the UN definition with regards to Sri Lanka's LTTE, but not for Hamas. That's what we call a double-standard, isn't it? One for the LTTE (an example of human shielding) and one for Hamas (not an example even though it's identical to what the LTTE does).

Seeing as how you posted no link to where that particular definition came from, I've got no idea of what context it was in. Could you post a link so I can see the whole thing in its entirety?

We're talking definitions now and HRW is inconsistant with theirs for "human shields". See above.

No, I was talking about the way you attempt to speak with authority about what happened in Gaza when you were there....


But you have no evidence anything is wrong with that video. As far as anyone knows, it's directly from Hamas TV. It appears you reject anything that just doesn't agree with your own worldview, like PMW and MEMRI videos, etc. You don't like the source, so you claim whatever evidence they bring is bogus, without any proof.

Oh, well. I tried to give you a chance to have a civil conversation and you blew it. Rather than accept what I said TWICE, you chose instead to invent some bullshit that's not my stance at all.

They are legal - the IDF has a right to defend Israeli citizens from rockets, even when they are fired from dense civilian populations like in the video I gave you the link for - an action clearly defined as human shielding according to UN definitions and HRW definition regarding Sri Lanka. As long as the IDF is careful and their defense is measured and proportionate, it's legal.

No, they're not legal. I find it sad that you can't bring yrself to admit that the IDF has committed human rights violations in Gaza.

So if B'tselem claims Mr. X is a civilian but there are pictures of him in combat gear with heavy weaponry, Hamas claims him as one of their warriors, he is mentioned as a martyr or resister by another Palestinian human rights org, and he's idolized on one of Hamas' websites, you say he's a civilian like you and me? Because B'tselem says so?

There's nothing difficult at all to understand about B'Tselem's definition of who is or isn't a combatant. Please read it. Unlike what yr trying to define combatants as, Btselem makes sense because that same standard can be applied to Israelis who weren't serving in the IDF but had belonged to it in the past...

[shira]

96. reply

Seeing as how you posted no link to where that particular definition came from, I've got no idea of what context it was in. Could you post a link so I can see the whole thing in its entirety?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/glossary/h.htm

so again, why do you trust AI and HRW's narrow definition of human-shield over the UN's?

No, they're not legal. I find it sad that you can't bring yrself to admit that the IDF has committed human rights violations in Gaza.

they may or may not have - over 100 investigations are being carried out by the IDF still, but firing back at a location (whether densely populated or not) isn't automatically a warcrime by Israel if Hamas is using that civilian location to draw fire from the IDF for shooting off their rockets.

There's nothing difficult at all to understand about B'Tselem's definition of who is or isn't a combatant. Please read it. Unlike what yr trying to define combatants as, Btselem makes sense because that same standard can be applied to Israelis who weren't serving in the IDF but had belonged to it in the past...

I'll give B'tselem some credit - their definition of combatant is better than PCHR (which is that one is only a combatant if he/she were holding a weapon at the time of death). Nizar Rayan counts as a non-combatant to PCHR.

But B'tselem has its problems too, as they do not classify this guy as a combatant......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7832249.stm

...which is supposed to lead people like us to conclude he counts as an innocent civilian - and that's utterly dishonest.

In fact, the ICRC definition of combatant vs. non-combatant is so controversial that many ICRC legal consultants withdrew their support for these guidelines.

A dozen international experts on the law of armed conflict have withdrawn their support from a June 1 final report by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) after five years of providing advice. The experts opposed the ICRC's failure to define the treaty phrase "direct participation in hostilities," as applying to people who voluntarily become human shields during a conflict or hostilities.

The law experts, who had been asked to help the Red Cross craft a definition of the phrase, withdrew their names to protest several issues, including the decision not to define voluntary human shields as direct participants in hostilities. All 50 experts on the panel had agreed that civilians who act as voluntary human shields should fit within the definition, which would make them legitimate military targets.

The final report defines "civilians attempting to shield a military objective by their presence" as persons entitled to protection against direct attack. It states that the conduct of voluntary human shields "does not amount to direct participation in hostilities."

One participant in the process said the ICRC decision might prevent military forces from targeting legitimate terrorist groups and their operations.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/inside-the-ring-95264632/?page=2

[Violet_Crumble]

99. Since when has some training database been some sort of official UN definition?

That link leads to a training database glossary for peacekeepers. Not exactly official, nor is it *the UN definition* as you claimed....

I don't understand how you can be so reticent to admit that the IDF carried out human rights violations while having no such reticence when it comes to Palestinians. How do you justify the use of human shields by the IDF? I got the impression human shields was yr pet project, but now I'm starting to suspect it's not of concern if the IDF is doing it.

On yr accusation about Said Siyam. Could you give me a link to the B'Tselem stats where they classify him as a civilian or a non-combatant? I just looked and couldn't find him at all...

I'm a bit confused. Why are you now talking about the ICRC definition of combatant? And why should anyone care if a few people disagree?

[shira]

102. since HRW uses that precise definition for the LTTE in Sri Lanka

mentioned once again here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x286996#287162

I don't understand how you can be so reticent to admit that the IDF carried out human rights violations while having no such reticence when it comes to Palestinians. How do you justify the use of human shields by the IDF? I got the impression human shields was yr pet project, but now I'm starting to suspect it's not of concern if the IDF is doing it.

I'm all for the IDF being held accountable for its actions and am proud of the fact that the Israeli public demands such accountability from the IDF, which is conducting over 100 investigations on Gaza as we speak. You see, I realize that unforunately this conflict will last longer and that the more Israel does to defend itself honorably, the better things will be. I'm all for legitimate criticism of the IDF but against all the demonization. In fact, demonizing the IDF is nothing but a distraction from real, honest criticism. Anyone who has legitimate concerns should be dismayed that Israel has to focus enormous time and resources to nasty witch hunts. Time is better spent focusing on reality, not fiction.

On yr accusation about Said Siyam. Could you give me a link to the B'Tselem stats where they classify him as a civilian or a non-combatant? I just looked and couldn't find him at all...

If you read that article, you'd find that under B'tselems new definitions of non-combatants, he fits it. So he doesn't count as a combatant. He may as well have just been an innocent farmer tending his crops when killed by the IDF.

I'm a bit confused. Why are you now talking about the ICRC definition of combatant? And why should anyone care if a few people disagree?

B'tselem has adopted the ICRC definition.

As for your last question - are you serious? You think voluntary human shields should not count as direct participants in hostilities - and therefore if shot or killed - they should count as if they were minding their business in their homes with their families?

You don't find this ICRC ruling on voluntary shields, that led to this lack of support from law experts, dishonest?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Okay. Let me know when you've finished reading every word HRW's ever written...

Better you than me. Even if I didn't have to go to work and deal with a teenage kid, I doubt I'd have the time and stamina to read through all that. I'm not exactly sure what you think yr proving, as I've already said twice now that I don't expect any organisation to be in total agreement with others 100% of the time....

I have a problem with the ideology and attitude of any group or individual who feels they need to *attack* human rights organisations. They give themselves away by the aggressive language when they use words like *attack* to describe what they do. I also have an issue with any organisation or individual who *attacks* just about every human rights group for just about every criticism of Israel they make. They're no different than the pro-China zealots about Tibet...

[shira]

54. why do I have to read every word HRW has ever written when their report on Hamas warcrimes....

...during OCL confirms (like AI) that unlike B'tselem, they found no evidence that Hamas shields illegally and that these actions have a direct impact on the legality of IDF responses?

I'm sorry for using the word "attack", so let me re-phrase...

What is wrong with any group or individual holding human rights NGO's accountable when HRW and AI advertise themselves to be objective and impartial observers? If they're ideologically and politically biased, shouldn't they be criticized?

[azurnoir]

15. Ah yeah promote what ever smear campaign you want

we've seen the "evidence" it simply doesn't hold up but don't let that stop you please

[Kurska]

17. The evidence is the man is VERY interested in Nazi germany's military.

I'd say that a cop who is VERY interested in the history of the KK to the point of collecting hoods would not be the man I would hire to investigate possible crimes committed by black folk (Or jews, irish, cathlics or slavs for that matter.)

No one is straight up calling him a nazi from what I've seen, I think it does however represent a lack of common sense on the part of HRW.

[azurnoir]

19. Yesss and he's a military analyst

so that makes him a Nazi sympathizer? Germany had built up a pretty impressive military machine prior to and during WW2 that is not approval of how that machine was used and there are many folks out there that collect German WW2 era military stuff, that does not mean they are Nazi sympathizers If that's the best you can do its a pretty pathetic and cheap personal smear campaign

[Kurska]

20. There have been THREE uses of the word Nazi sympathizer in this thread.

One is a quote from HRW, two are from you, so I'd suggest you stop swinging at imaginary enemies. Secondly, unless you're completely divorced from reality you must understand that a man comfortable wearing the Iron cross and who salivates over Leather SS jackets is never the person you should call upon to investigate the actions of Jews.

Pick your battles, no matter how nuanced you try to develop your argument you will never be able to explain away to the public at large why the man who apparently spearheaded the white phosphorous claim is excitedly posting about Nazi Merch on the internet.

[azurnoir]

21. If the whole OP is not to imply Garlasco is a Nazi sympathizer

then what is its point? Your post is also quite contradictory First you claim that I'm swinging at "imaginary enemies" because I used the term Nazi sympathizer then rave on about Iron Crosses and "excited postings" what do you simply prefer innuendo is saying it bluntly too obvious?

but perhaps I err the term "fetish" has sexual connotations also also is that the point to imply Garlasco is some sort of sexual deviant?

[Kurska]

22. There is no evidence he is a nazi.

there is no evidence that he wished the third reich won the war, there is no evidence he has sympathized with the cause or ideology of the nazi party. All there is is some very strong circumstantial evidence that he indeed does have some sort of very strong (8000 post strong) and atleast somewhat positive feelings toward something about the third Reich (thinking SS men are snappy dressers doesn't make you a nazi).

However having a man whose definition of perfect sunday dress is a iron cross or a SS jacket "investigating" the jewish state is unacceptable in every sense of the word. Unacceptable to the holocaust survivors who live there and unacceptable to the jewish children who learn from a early age that 33% of their ancestors were wiped out by the people now inspiring the fashion wardrobe of the man who is apparently supposed to attack their record on human rights.

If you don't get that, if you don't is that a top investigator of Israel's human right record salivating over a SS leather jacker is sickening to the people who suffered or whose ancestors suffered in the holocaust, then you're utterly hopeless.

On edit: please show me a single line of the OP's article that bends the truth to imply that the man is a Nazi sympathizer. Pointing out facts like the man is obsessed with some aspects of Nazi Germany doesn't count.

[azurnoir]

23. First a cheap innuendo and smear campaign

then trying to use the Holocaust as a justification? That's truly low

BTW I teach my kids that had they been born in an earlier time and different place they too would have been marched off to the gas chambers

[Kurska]

24. Yes, because using the holocaust to justify unease about nazi related items is really a low.

Do you even read what you write before you post it? Do you honestly think there isn't a problem when a man tasked with investigating the actions of the jewish state is caught raving about SS uniforms and making thousands of posts about nazi memorabilia. I know I keep saying saying that, but I'm flabbergasted that is really the opinion you apparently hold.

Excuse me, I almost had you pegged as someone who is slightly rational. Maybe you're really so dense you believe that if you walked into a room full of jews and announced you not only collected Nazi gear, but wore it you'd be welcome with open arms and smiles.

On edit: I find it telling that you're not even attempting mental gymnastic to excuse it, you're just saying it is a "Smear" to point out the truth of him wearing exactly what we wore and saying exactly what he said.

[azurnoir]

26. But you are trying to use "unease about Nazi items"

to justify a smear campaign against HRW it may be much more productive to take on the report it self rather smear the writer

what truth did he say this to a group of Holocaust survivors and the only "mental gymnastics" here are your own we aren't smearing him ah just sayin is all huh?

[Kurska]

28. I've never smeared HRW in this thread.

The WORST I've said is that they need to do a better job investigating their people. I could say the same for the Israeli government given the number of nutball statements some aides make.

So you understand why you wouldn't want to say that infront of jews? So do you think you might also understand why the jewish people and the jewish state might be a little pissed off the man who wrote reports about them and tried to have dialog with them was doing the exact sorts of things I described?

[azurnoir]

33. First you assume much and know nothing

were I am concerned but I find your self righteous uttering about Jews humorous
and no haven't smeared you have supported the smear

[Kurska]

39. Then why are you engaging me In a rude dismissive manner while attacking enemies not here?

It really is "Funny" how many people find people trying to articulate on the sensitivities of the jewish people "funny"

[azurnoir]

42. Perhaps you should reread my posts

as it is obvious from your rantings about my supposed attitudes towards Jews that something flew right over your head dear

but you would be right about my attitude towards the hyperbole of a Jew

[oberliner]

57. What is "the hyperbole of a Jew" ?

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[azurnoir]

60. I was speaking to the poster I was addressing

whom I believe is Jew as he has mentioned he will be taking a BithRight trip

[oberliner]

64. I just don't understand what the phrase means

I would be curious to get a better understanding of what you take that phrase to mean if you are willing to do so.

[azurnoir]

70. It should be quite obvious

I think the poster I was answering is Jewish and I felt he was being hyperbolic and if you bother to read what was being said he was commenting that my "attitude" was towards Jews in general rather than an individual-clear enough?

[Vegasaurus]

73. Nope, you are just back deep in the ignorance hole again

the "hyperbole of a Jew"!

[azurnoir]

75. LOL how is that "ignorance"? But do rage on dearie

you've been trying so so desperately to peg me for antiSemitism including an insinuation that I could be a Holocaust denier please do keep going its actually funny

[Vegasaurus]

76. No, you just make incorrect statements constantly that require correction

You were wrong about Holocaust instruction in US schools, and continued to insist that something was true, which wasn't.

Too bad your children had a substandard education, because it really is standard curriculum all over the US.

And the "hyperbole of a Jew" is just a horrific statement, so be glad people were only making fun of you.

[azurnoir]

81. I was hardly wrong and the insistance is/was yours

any statements as to my own educational experience 35+ years ago were just that, Mosbys post concerned current curriculum but do not let that fact stop you facts usually don't

and what I said was hardly horrific except to those who are desperately hyperbolic themselves

and oh as to my childrens education being substandard that is hardly true but here I'll give you some real red meat they went to school in the district that has the only Muslim to ever be elected to congress maybe it means something :sarcasm:

PS my congresscritter also was one of the few to speak out against Operation Hot Winter and vote "present" on OLC

[Vegasaurus]

77. Nothing wrong with Birthright trips

They are a great way for kids to see Israel.

[azurnoir]

82. Did I say it is wrong nope

I said I believe Kurska is Jewish because he mentioned taking a birthright trip

[shira]

62. well, it's much worse than the hyperbole of an Arab

:sarcasm:

[Jim Sagle]

66. Garlasco IS a Nazi sympathizer, and everybody here goddamn well knows it.

Next!

This thread might as well close up shop.

[shira]

68. I wonder if Garlasco wears that Iron Cross sweatshirt when meeting with Israeli officials

Or when he's meeting with Hamas officials and getting all those "eyewitness" accounts.

:eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

69. And I wonder if he's enjoying this thread.

;)

[Violet_Crumble]

72. What an idiotic thing to say...

Why is it that you find complete bullshit like what Jimbo posted so acceptable? I find that sort of post and yr response to it to be pretty damn dishonest...

[shira]

79. what's dishonest about Garlasco's Iron Cross sweat shirt?

http://backspin.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515b7869e20120a5692670970b-pi

[Violet_Crumble]

83. What's dishonest was Jimbo calling him a Nazi sympathiser...

And the way you replied to it did give the impression you agreed with what Jimbo said, or else you'd have corrected him on what's a pretty dishonest accusation...

[shira]

85. i'm not certain it's dishonest - if Garlasco were only a creepy Nazi collector freak, that...

...would be one thing, but the fact is Garlasco's (and HRW's) reports against Israel are ideologically biased to the extreme - which gives me good reason to question Garlasco's motivations.

I realize you don't agree - even though it was shown to you that HRW, AI, etc.. are ideologically and politically biased (and in a very harmful, regressive way). For example, their narrow definition of what constitutes "human shields" (in opposition to the UN definition). And recall what HRW wrote on Sri Lanka recently:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/04/sri-lanka-urgently-evacuate-civilians

Human Rights Watch has criticized both Sri Lankan government forces and the LTTE for serious violations of international humanitarian law during the recent fighting. In addition to preventing civilians from leaving combat zones, the LTTE has deployed their forces close to civilians, thus using them as "human shields," fired upon civilians trying to flee to government-controlled areas, and recruited children for their forces.

You refuse to see a clear double-standard, but it's right there for all to see. In the example with Sri Lanka, deploying forces close to civilians is defined as human-shielding by HRW (like the UN definition), however, when Hamas does this HRW is careful not to call this human-shielding under their narrow definition of what constitutes such an action for I/P matters.

In addition, Hamas - like the LTTE - also recruits children for their forces but HRW and AI fail to condemn this in their reports - as they did on Sri Lanka - which is a quite disgusting double-standard. I don't see how anyone pro-Palestinian could be satisfied with such reports from a humanitarian organization that purports to give a damn about Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. It is dishonest. He is NOT a Nazi sympathiser...

Shira, please don't try to rehash a discussion of human shields you bailed out of from another part of the thread. If you want to reply to what I said on the issue, please go to the post in question and reply to it. This is about Jimbo saying something dishonest about someone and the way you gleefully grabbed it and ran with it.

[shira]

92. it's Jim's opinion, not dishonesty

I agree there's not enough evidence to label Garlasco a Nazi sympathiser - and he may still be - but I do believe there's enough evidence based on his work on I/P (and his nasty obsession with all that is nazi) that suggests he has a major problem - an irrational one - against the only Jewish state in the world and that he's a creepy freeper - which makes him a prime candidate to be a nazi sympathiser.

Observe his own words...

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law," says Garlasco, "and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs."

The same applies many times to Israel, but never once does Garlasco acknowledge this. We're to pretend the Taliban does things Hamas would never attempt. :eyes:

Then there's this from Garlasco...

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230_page2.shtml

If Israel had done that - and to wit, they have never carried out anything as atrocious as that - Garlasco would be screaming for the IDF to be taken to the Hague. The fact is, Garlasco knows what a cluster fuck war is, and he has no business NEVER giving Israel any benefit of the doubt in his stupid, lopsided screeds.

With his record, I certainly wouldn't discount whether he's a Nazi sympathizer. 8000 posts on Nazi forums and a 400-page book shows he's an absolutely obsessed fanatic, not just any casual collector. That makes him very creepy. His own military record suggests he's a heartless, warmongering freeper - if we apply the same standards to him as anyone else. And without question, he's a hypocrite. A creepy, hypocritical freeper. Marc Galasco.

In his case, I'd rather not grant him the benefit of the doubt on anything. His views are more consistent with someone like Pat Buchanon than anyone I respect.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Sorry, but it's outright dishonesty...

It's incredibly dishonest to falsely accuse someone of being something they're not without a shred of proof. Look at what yr claiming here. 8000 posts on a Nazi forum? Where the hell is that claim coming from? Claims about a 400 page book you haven't even read? I don't understand why people make up stuff instead of dealing with facts...

[shira]

95. you don't see the irony? you say that's dishonest but Garlasco isn't? HRW isn't dishonest?

Jim could very well be right - however, there's no question Garlasco is dishonest based on what you just read 2 posts up. There's no question HRW is dishonest about its definition of human shields regarding I/P, based on how it defined them in Sri Lanka.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. I saw that you made some claims that weren't true...

..and then ignored me when I pointed them out. Jimbo isn't right at all, just like you weren't right in those false claims you made in yr prior post...

[shira]

98. why aren't you equally angry with Garlasco and HRW for their dishonesty?

what they do is much worse than Jim's opinion.

if I'm wrong, that's fine and I admit it - but that doesn't mean I'm dishonest.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. Just because you say someone's dishonest, it doesn't make them so...

And, yes. You made some false claims. Here's where I pointed them out: '8000 posts on a Nazi forum? Where the hell is that claim coming from? Claims about a 400 page book you haven't even read?'

[shira]

101. Garlasco's statments about his work on Iraq conflict with his judgment on Israel

He is employing a clear double-standard. Aside from being hypocritical, it is dishonest and unethical. That's not just my opinion, as anyone who reads his statements (which I cited previously in this thread) can see for themselves.

I read somewhere that he wrote around 8000 posts on Nazi forums - whether it's 6000 or 8000, the man is obsessed with this stuff - and his book is around 400 pages long on nazi artifacts.

[Jim Sagle]

103. Your relation to honesty is strictly casual - a concept you heard of once and swore to avoid forever

[henank]

34. Especially if the messenger has committed the same "war crimes"

that he accuses Israel of committing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230_page2.shtml

"There's this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth," says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.

At the Pentagon, Garlasco was chief of high value targeting at the start of the Iraq war. He told 60 Minutes how many civilians he was allowed to kill around each high-value target -- targets like Saddam Hussein and his leadership.

"Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you're gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that's not a problem," Garlasco explains. "But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld."

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed.

"The bombs that are dropped are really only as accurate as the intelligence behind them?" Pelley asks Crowder.

"That's true. But we have come a very long way in getting that intelligence to be more accurate," Crowder says. "We will collect human intelligence, signals intelligence, overhead full-motion video, all of that tied together, very often in real time. That gives us a better understanding and a significantly higher confidence that the targets we're engaging are in fact valid military targets."

Of course the Taliban are killing civilians too, targeting them deliberately. By contrast, 60 Minutes watched American airmen calculate how to minimize civilian casualties with the choice of timing, weapon, and direction of attack.

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

Hmm. Change the words America to Israel and Taliban to Hamas and you get the exact same situation as Israel in Gaza. Only Israel has a better hit record of terrorists to civilians than America.

I wonder who is going to investigate Garlasco for his time at the Pentagon? For all those civilians he caused to be killed. I know! Human Rights Watch! They're excellent at this sort of thing! :sarcasm:

[Jim Sagle]

65. The message ain't nuthin' but shit and neither is the messenger.

88 and out the gate.

[shira]

35. more on Garlasco and HRW...

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230_page2.shtml

So the Taliban is violating international law by shielding in people's homes, but according to Garlasco and HRW, Hamas (and Hezbollah) are not? HRW has stated repeatedly in its reports they have no evidence either Hamas or Hezbollah deliberately used people as human shields in battle situations.

B'tselem had this to say in their most recent reports from the past few months - which happens to be more than HRW has ever admitted:

B'Tselem recognizes the complexity of combat in a densely populated area against armed groups that do not hesitate to use illegal means and find refuge within the civilian population.....B'Tselem focuses on Israel's human rights obligations. However, the organization states that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Hamas’ method of combat and treatment of the Palestinian civilian population affects the legality of Israeli attacks and the injury they caused to civilians....It is undisputed that application of these principles in the Gaza Strip is complex, given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and any error could be fatal. In addition, it appears that Hamas members systematically breached these principles.... Indeed, it is not exact science and commanders in the field must make rapid decisions while often lacking full knowledge of the facts.

This says something about Garlasco's credibility, does it not? When defending the USA, he uses the same arguments the IDF utilizes (human shields) but does not afford the IDF the same consideration. In fact, he's full of shit in denying evidence exists that Hamas and Hezbollah systematically make use of their own civilians. Very credible coming from an avid and obsessed collector of Nazi memorabilia.

There's more from the same link above:

At the Pentagon, Garlasco was chief of high value targeting at the start of the Iraq war. He told 60 Minutes how many civilians he was allowed to kill around each high-value target -- targets like Saddam Hussein and his leadership.

"Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you're gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that's not a problem," Garlasco explains. "But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld."

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed."

Wow!

If we judge Garlasco by his standards against Israel, then we'd have to conclude - based on his own record - that he is more guilty of war crimes than those he accuses (including Israel). Let's compare Israel's ratio of civilians to combatants killed to Garlasco's.......in this assault, 0 combatants were killed vs. several hundred civilians. 100% civilians killed to 0% combatants. And of course, 29 dead civilians for every 1 combatant killed is no problem either.

Humanitarian numbers that Israel can only hope to attain.

:eyes:

Garlasco has zero credibility.

==========

And now pro-Israel blogs reporting on his Nazi fixation are claiming they're receiving sock-puppet canned responses defending Garlasco from IP addresses that can be tracked to HRW itself!

Just gets better and better!

:)

[azurnoir]

36. So who's tracking these IP's again

that really does not impress me much as IP's can be changed or counterfeited in the blink of an eye

[shira]

61. HRW and Sockpuppets

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/09/11/hrw-and-sockpuppets/

I know, so unbelievable...hmm?

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

74. 3 days later................

and yes it is as I said such things are quite easily made up the character named could have been qyite literally anyone the claims of tracing back to HRW though are quite curious as you see an organization such as HRW would have "safeguards" in place against such tracing so it could be that some bloggers are quite aggressively hacking into HRW's computers to gain info, something that is also illegal or far, far more likely it a crock, BS, self aggrandizing blowing smoke
But I notice you use the opportunity to pimp a right leaning site (again)in an off topic subject that is supposedly to gain some sort of credibility

[shira]

80. so?

of course you can believe this is all made up - HRW is an organization consisting of angels as we all know.

And Harry's Place is no right leaning site.

[azurnoir]

84. did I say HRW was angelic?

as to Harrys Place would Islamophobic suit you more, I thought "right leaning" was kinder

[shira]

86. oh? so how is HRW not angelic in your view?

and Harry's Place is not Islamophobic.

[azurnoir]

87. In my view no one is angelic

and all one has to do is check out Harrys Place to form, an opinion

ETA in fact "angelic" was your terminology mot mine so you create a strawman claim and then demand I answer it

[shira]

88. but you trust this non-angelic organization on everything I/P, why?

[shira]

40. HRW's Cobban Not Happy With Garlasco

Marc Garlasco's little "hobby"

There is a huge commotion in the blogosphere about the fact that Marc Garlasco, the senior military affairs specialist at Human Rights Watch, has long sustained a hobby of collecting and writing about Nazi memorabilia.

I've thought this over lot since I first learned about it yesterday. Is collecting and writing a long book about Nazi memorabilia in his spare time something an employer like Human Rights Watch ought to be concerned about?

After consideration, I say Yes.

more...
http://justworldnews.org/archives/003787.html

[shira]

41. seems many of HRW's board members have a problem with HRW

Broken Watch:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=284937&mesg_id=284937

[Ken Burch]

104. What this tells us is that this man, as an individual, is a swine

What he did, however, cannot be held against HRW as a group. Especially since they've now suspended the bastard and will likely kick him out outright.