- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,968
- 10,837
- 77
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
Two Hamas people were overheard confessing that it was one of their own rockets. I guess you missed that one.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Two Hamas people were overheard confessing that it was one of their own rockets. I guess you missed that one.Well, I've seen the evidence that refutes Israel's claim that Hamas did it, and to surmise, a homemade rocket has never created that much destruction. However, some footage captured the sound of the strike as almost identical to the strike which hit the Al-Ahli hospital, and missiles that make that sound are American JDAM missiles carried by jets. A guided air-to-surface weapon which can weigh almost a tonne. They also have a “proximity fuse” setting, which can be programmed to explode on impact or at any desired distance above the ground. If it exploded just before impact, it would leave a much smaller crater and cause far less damage to the hospital.
Other pieces of evidence further substantiate this, but if you ask me, I've seen and heard enough: Israel bombed the Baptist hospital, and they have been since the start. They bombarded nearly all hospitals, schools, homes and refugee camps. They cut power and utilities and banned essentials. Thousands upon thousands of victims, many being children.
So why did Israel lie about this one? Because nearly 500 civilians got killed, sparking global outrage, many of whom were taking shelter from nearly two weeks of relentless Israeli bombing.
Thanks for the information. Seeing that you have had extensive historical information to inform me, that saves me having to re-read history to confirm whether I am right or not. So, why bark if I have a dog to bark for me?In 1931 or 1937?
The US reaction was pretty strong. By the international standards of the time, the initial oil embargo and then near total trade embargo with Japan were strident indeed. The US also created the Stimson Doctrine in response, which denied official recognition of regions annexed by force. Then there was all the actions that the US undertook concerning the fighting in the League of Nations - actions which contributed to Japan's departure from the organisation.
By which time the realities of the war and the recognition of the technical limitations of air power at the time meant that any adherence to the 'Roosevelt Rules' - which had demanded that all belligerents refrain from bombing civilians - had evaporated.
The US went into the conflicts of the mid to late 1930s with the conception that civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. This naivety promptly evaporated after Pearl Harbour, although there were lingering strains of resistance in many echelons of US society all the way through the war.
I really suggest that you read up on the history of the period. The Japanese occupation of Manchuria and then it's 1937 invasion caused a HUGE amount of international upset.
The US approach was formally one of strict neutrality - in keeping with the terms of the Neutrality Act, the Roosevelt government really didn't want to be seen favouring any side. However, there was huge outcry among the US population from late 1937 on (not helped by the Japanese sinking a US patrol ship, or coverage from Nanking).
Well, they did. The US went from demanding belligerents avoid targeting civilians, to deliberately firebombing Japanese cities. The "dehousing" as it was euphemistically known, was intentional.
Again, check your history.
The UN called for a ceasefire within 48 hours of the start of the Six Day War. For the Yom Kippur war, the UN immediately started diplomatic efforts towards a ceasefire, but only managed to formally broker deal 16 days in, as outlined under Resolution 338.
You really need to read up on your history.
When the United Nations allow Israel to have a seat on the Security Council, then Israel might be more open to counsel. The problem with giving Israel a seat would be that the Arab nations controlling most of the world's oil, would put up the price of oil to astronomical levels as revenge, and that would shatter the world's economy. This is why the United Nations are afraid to give Israel a seat on the Security Council, and also why the U.N. doesn't come out and give any support for Israel.Is it hypocrisy to counsel Israel to use more appropriate and precise munitions based on today's technology to achieve it's military objective?
Breaking news from a war-zone is notoriously inaccurate.BBC News reported the explosion as an Israeli airstrike, and then, when evidence made it clear that it was a misfired Hamas rocket, it had to go into urgent damage control. It is interesting that no apology from either the BBC New nor The New York Times to Israel was made for their false reporting.
They suggested it could have been and immediately clarified. From here: Israel accuses BBC of ‘modern blood libel’ over reporting of hospital strikeBBC News reported the explosion as an Israeli airstrike...
Rather that was what the IDF claimed. Linguists have cast doubt on the claim since they don't think the language and accents are genuine.Two Hamas people were overheard confessing that it was one of their own rockets. I guess you missed that one.
When the United Nations allow Israel to have a seat on the Security Council, then Israel might be more open to counsel. The problem with giving Israel a seat would be that the Arab nations controlling most of the world's oil, would put up the price of oil to astronomical levels as revenge, and that would shatter the world's economy. This is why the United Nations are afraid to give Israel a seat on the Security Council, and also why the U.N. doesn't come out and give any support for Israel.
Because they are either Hamas supporters or are afraid of them because there is a base of them under the hospital.Why do you automatically believe Netanyahu (facing corruption charges) rather than the hospital doctors.
I suppose it's the same type of evidence that shows the planes didn't take down the twin towers and they were blown up on purpose after the the crash.Well, I've seen the evidence that refutes Israel's claim that Hamas did it, and to surmise, a homemade rocket has never created that much destruction. However, some footage captured the sound of the strike as almost identical to the strike which hit the Al-Ahli hospital, and missiles that make that sound are American JDAM missiles carried by jets. A guided air-to-surface weapon which can weigh almost a tonne. They also have a “proximity fuse” setting, which can be programmed to explode on impact or at any desired distance above the ground. If it exploded just before impact, it would leave a much smaller crater and cause far less damage to the hospital.
Other pieces of evidence further substantiate this, but if you ask me, I've seen and heard enough: Israel bombed the Baptist hospital, and they have been since the start. They bombarded nearly all hospitals, schools, homes and refugee camps. They cut power and utilities and banned essentials. Thousands upon thousands of victims, many being children.
So why did Israel lie about this one? Because nearly 500 civilians got killed, sparking global outrage, many of whom were taking shelter from nearly two weeks of relentless Israeli bombing.
What if there is no Hamas base under the hospital, or have I fallen for propaganda again from my own head?Because they are either Hamas supporters or are afraid of them because there is a base of them under the hospital.
No sorry that's not a single.ple explanation. That's a good propaganda tale.A simple alternative explanation is that it's an underground shelter used by hospital patients and staff used in times of bombardment and the guards' rota is simply a hand written calendar.
Here's what's going to happen. Once Israel gets in and takes out the base the Anti-Semetics will come out claiming that it wasn't a base, it was a bomb shelter for the hospital, or that the photos are fake and are of something else etc.What if there is no Hamas base under the hospital, or have I fallen for propaganda again from my own head?
There are people who still believe it though. And people who sure believed it then as well. I didn't see you being all reasonable then making this type of claim. Maybe I missed it.Breaking news from a war-zone is notoriously inaccurate.
So no evidence of a base is evidence for a base?Here's what's going to happen. Once Israel gets in and takes out the base the Anti-Semetics will come out claiming that it wasn't a base, it was a bomb shelter for the hospital, or that the photos are fake and are of something else etc.
There those who wouldn't believe it unless they were there on the raid itself.
The people who would be likely to believe reports straight from “ground-zero” in a war-zone, as the truth set in gold, aren’t likely to listen to news straight from a source but have it filtered through their media of choice.There are people who still believe it though. And people who sure believed it then as well. I didn't see you being all reasonable then making this type of claim. Maybe I missed it.
You know what "claim" means right?So no evidence of a base is evidence for a base?
Somebody got all of the bases covered.
Well you still weren't making those claims when the news came out apparently. I wonder why.The people who would be likely to believe reports straight from “ground-zero” in a war-zone, as the truth set in gold, aren’t likely to listen to news straight from a source but have it filtered through their media of choice.
What exactly would you consider evidence? Maps? Computers? Tables? A sign that says "Secret Base" in Arabic? What?So no evidence of a base is evidence for a base?
Somebody got all of the bases covered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?