Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
MichaelW

Hamas admits 600-700 militants were killed

94 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MichaelW

ohh please facts .. and you .. don't go well together

now if you excuse me i have no more time to waste with you

every one free to think as they please

Freedom of speech or not, I know someone is wrong when I see it. You haven't posted any relevant evidence or well known information that I have seen so far. And when I ask you to post links to any "information" you have posted, you have not done so. When I ask questions as I did in the last post I made, you have not answered them. Do what I request and I shall go somewhere else.

I'm giving you an opportunity to prove yourself Knight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
William Rea

Nope.. sorry.. can't see what you're driving at. Is it possible that my PDF version of the Goldstone Report has different page numbers to yours ?

Could you give us the relevant paragraph numbers instead ? (they number the paragraphs to avoid precisely this sort of confusion).

meow purr :)

Items 350 to 364.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
William Rea

your demand is being ignored.

I corrected your typo for you.

I am not making any demand, no one is compelled to answer but I do interpret the fact that none of the "Pro-Israeli" posters on here is able to back up the point made by the OP that "New figures debunk Goldstone Report". However, it has been pointed out that my pdf reference may be misleading so I'll offer a fourth opportunity for you all to back up the OP. Here is the same post with Items instead of page numbers.

Compare and contrast the following...

1. The Haaretz Headline and lead paragraph

2. Items 350 to 364 of Goldstone

3. Precisely what Fathi Hamad said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

I corrected your typo for you.

I am not making any demand, no one is compelled to answer but I do interpret the fact that none of the "Pro-Israeli" posters on here is able to back up the point made by the OP that "New figures debunk Goldstone Report". However, it has been pointed out that my pdf reference may be misleading so I'll offer a fourth opportunity for you all to back up the OP. Here is the same post with Items instead of page numbers.

Compare and contrast the following...

1. The Haaretz Headline and lead paragraph

2. Items 350 to 364 of Goldstone

3. Precisely what Fathi Hamad said.

Ahhh... thanks for that WR... I appreciate it.

Nevertheless, I'm still slightly puzzled about what the fuss is. The relevant paragraphs in the Goldstein report DO seem to give more credence to the Palestinian NGO reports, and somewhat "rubbishes" the IDF reports. It doesn't cite any figures from HAMAS. But you know... with the exception of the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (who where WAY off), the NGO figures - even the Palestinian ones - where not THAT far out. The median figure was that 550 "combatants" had been killed (if you include the Gaza police as combatants..which seems reasonable as they would be vetted and controlled by HAMAS, and therefore be deemed part of the HAMAS governments security forces, rather than an "impartial" police force serving an independent judiciary).

So.. all in all... the 'new' figure of killed militants (as stated by Fathii Hamad and quoted by Haraatz) is roughly in line with both the Goldstein report, AND the IDF reports. The only jarring note is the allegation by Haraatz that HAMAS had previously claimed only 49 militants killed.... though I can't find a convincing citation for this so far anyway.

Umm.. where does that leave us ?

meow purr :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight Of Shadows

Freedom of speech or not, I know someone is wrong when I see it. You haven't posted any relevant evidence or well known information that I have seen so far. And when I ask you to post links to any "information" you have posted, you have not done so. When I ask questions as I did in the last post I made, you have not answered them. Do what I request and I shall go somewhere else.

I'm giving you an opportunity to prove yourself Knight.

prove my self ??? and to you ??? hahaha is that a joke ?

who said i want or i have to prove my self .. and specially to you

... when .. and IF you got out of your thinking box

the box that says " israel and usa are right whatever they do "

" arabs are wrong no matter what "

then you can be fit for discussions .. i didn't say that from freedom

of speech i said that as cease of discussions between us

coz it's clear you're holding on to your point views .. as wrong as they are

so i don't need to prove my self to you .. and i don't care to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
William Rea

Ahhh... thanks for that WR... I appreciate it.

Nevertheless, I'm still slightly puzzled about what the fuss is. The relevant paragraphs in the Goldstein report DO seem to give more credence to the Palestinian NGO reports, and somewhat "rubbishes" the IDF reports. It doesn't cite any figures from HAMAS. But you know... with the exception of the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (who where WAY off), the NGO figures - even the Palestinian ones - where not THAT far out. The median figure was that 550 "combatants" had been killed (if you include the Gaza police as combatants..which seems reasonable as they would be vetted and controlled by HAMAS, and therefore be deemed part of the HAMAS governments security forces, rather than an "impartial" police force serving an independent judiciary).

So.. all in all... the 'new' figure of killed militants (as stated by Fathii Hamad and quoted by Haraatz) is roughly in line with both the Goldstein report, AND the IDF reports. The only jarring note is the allegation by Haraatz that HAMAS had previously claimed only 49 militants killed.... though I can't find a convincing citation for this so far anyway.

Umm.. where does that leave us ?

meow purr :)

It isn't me claiming that Fathi Hamad had made statements that debunked the Goldstone report. I have demonstrated that quite the opposite is true and that in fact he has confirmed Goldstone with reasonable accuracy so the sub-heading stating "New figures debunk Goldstone Report" is patently untrue.

If that point is settled we can discuss devious use of words from Haaretz to create a distortion and as a side issue that will no doubt drag the devious designation of combatants that the IDF uses to inflate its figures into the discussion.

Is my first paragraph above now generally agreed by the posters in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

prove my self ??? and to you ??? hahaha is that a joke ?

who said i want or i have to prove my self .. and specially to you

... when .. and IF you got out of your thinking box

the box that says " israel and usa are right whatever they do "

" arabs are wrong no matter what "

then you can be fit for discussions .. i didn't say that from freedom

of speech i said that as cease of discussions between us

coz it's clear you're holding on to your point views .. as wrong as they are

so i don't need to prove my self to you .. and i don't care to do so

Fine. Be an *******. Be ignorant. But your still wrong and always will be. You have refused to provide me with information time and time again. Me being "fit" for discussions? What? Who said you had a higher moral code? Stop being so arrogant and actually do something good for once.

End of discussion Knight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight Of Shadows

yep not fit for discussion not even a bit ..

you see in discussions people throw their personal ideas aside

and open mind for other opinions to analyze

what you do is you just compare those opinions to your hard

"israel is always right arabs always wrong " opinion

so discussions or offering you proves are uselss

i'd rather spend that time with some one who understand

the methods of discussions not some one just want to put his opinion

as facts " no proves " and want proves of other opinions

and you might wanna keep it " self respect " level with words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

It isn't me claiming that Fathi Hamad had made statements that debunked the Goldstone report. I have demonstrated that quite the opposite is true and that in fact he has confirmed Goldstone with reasonable accuracy so the sub-heading stating "New figures debunk Goldstone Report" is patently untrue.

If that point is settled we can discuss devious use of words from Haaretz to create a distortion and as a side issue that will no doubt drag the devious designation of combatants that the IDF uses to inflate its figures into the discussion.

Is my first paragraph above now generally agreed by the posters in here?

Broadly speaking I'd have to agree with you.

If I was being picky, then I would say that the tone of the Goldstone report was dismissive of the IDF figures, whereas the most recent statement by Fathii appears to support them. So from that perspective, you COULD argue that the Goldstone report has been found wanting. However, I would suggest that the term "debunk" is excessive.

But even then, that relies on a particular reading of Fathii's numbers (is a "martyr" the same as a "combatant", for example ?"), and we have to ask just how accurate Fathii's numbers are anyway ?

Sooo... on balance... case against Goldstone dismissed, and yes... on the face of it ... Haraatz appears to be in the dock. But then... "Newspaper hypes up story to make it seem more interesting" is hardly - well - headline news ?

meow purr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

yep not fit for discussion not even a bit ..

you see in discussions people throw their personal ideas aside

and open mind for other opinions to analyze

what you do is you just compare those opinions to your hard

"israel is always right arabs always wrong " opinion

so discussions or offering you proves are uselss

i'd rather spend that time with some one who understand

the methods of discussions not some one just want to put his opinion

as facts " no proves " and want proves of other opinions

and you might wanna keep it " self respect " level with words

I know what a discussion is, Knight. Stop acting as if I do not know anything because I do. And no, I do not have a "Israel is always right and Arabs are not" because I have actually posted in favour of the Arabs but people like you give me a good reason why I will always support Israel more than the Arabs. I tried being leniant in my opinions of the conflict, and I'll admit, you haven't spammed the forums with anti-Israeli topics, unlike other members, although you probably do need to see the difference between a proper website and a conspiracy site. But being so blatantly arrogant and posting some of the most ridiculous posts I have seen doesn't help your cause one little bit. It is that reason again why I will support Israel over the Arabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

If I was being picky, then I would say that the tone of the Goldstone report was dismissive of the IDF figures, whereas the most recent statement by Fathii appears to support them. So from that perspective, you COULD argue that the Goldstone report has been found wanting. However, I would suggest that the term "debunk" is excessive.

But even then, that relies on a particular reading of Fathii's numbers (is a "martyr" the same as a "combatant", for example ?"), and we have to ask just how accurate Fathii's numbers are anyway ?

As I was only copying what the headlines said, don't blame me for the misinterpretation some people have put forward. However, in saying that, the fact that Fathi actually came out and admitted that Hamas made their figures up just to make the Israelis look bad and I'm sure some could form a logical argument against the Goldstone report for sure.

A martyr is someone who makes the ultimate sacrifice for their cause (Joan of Arc for example). A combatant is usually someone who fights and follows orders but is not willing to die for a cause ( a normal soldier for example). In this case, Hamas fighters are sort of both, as they are willing to die for their cause, which is to destroy Israel, and follow orders given by local commanders. Fathi describes them as "martyrs" because he believes the struggle against Israel as a holy crusade against Zionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight Of Shadows

I know what a discussion is, Knight. Stop acting as if I do not know anything because I do. And no, I do not have a "Israel is always right and Arabs are not" because I have actually posted in favour of the Arabs but people like you give me a good reason why I will always support Israel more than the Arabs. I tried being leniant in my opinions of the conflict, and I'll admit, you haven't spammed the forums with anti-Israeli topics, unlike other members, although you probably do need to see the difference between a proper website and a conspiracy site. But being so blatantly arrogant and posting some of the most ridiculous posts I have seen doesn't help your cause one little bit. It is that reason again why I will support Israel over the Arabs.

yeah yeah try to not get it too personal

and don't talk about reason cause you have not tiny bit of reason :D

it's not consipercy .. most of people knows how israel treat palestine

people and most people knows the real deal

the whole area around middle east knows the deal

then you come from faraway place wanna put facts and if the facts

were right i wouldn't care but you have no idea of the situation

and you keep nagging and claiming stuff .. you're here for bickering

and nagging .. not for discussion

so i'd rather less discussions with you .. and you can support who ever you like

and i can support whoever i like on the other hand ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ships-cat

yeah yeah try to not get it too personal

and don't talk about reason cause you have not tiny bit of reason :D

it's not consipercy .. most of people knows how israel treat palestine

people and most people knows the real deal

the whole area around middle east knows the deal

then you come from faraway place wanna put facts and if the facts

were right i wouldn't care but you have no idea of the situation

and you keep nagging and claiming stuff .. you're here for bickering

and nagging .. not for discussion

so i'd rather less discussions with you .. and you can support who ever you like

and i can support whoever i like on the other hand ..

"Not a tiny bit of reason" ? That seems a very harsh statement, Knight of Shadows.

You'll forgive me, but based on your comments thus far, you appear reluctant to entertain ANY evidence that contradicts your own preconceived position. So wither reason now ?

meow purr :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight Of Shadows

ohh that was harsh ?

you didn't see his previous 2 posts ?

and yes he claim stuff as facts with no prove .. and requires proves

for other claims .. so how does that makes since

and you need prove of what exactly ?

i post my prove once .. and you may not been here before the previous

discussions with him i posted books and historic facts .. topics ..

but why bother with some one who's too stick and stricked about his own

opinions who think of any one oppose his opinion as totally wrong

and start making personal statment against them

why should i waste my time ?

you should have know this or even read his post before jumping in

and saying it was harsh ok ?

moew purr

Edited by Knight Of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

Have you actually looked at yourself in the mirror lately, Knight? As I remember, you have said to other people, besides me, that they live in a "false reality" and that their opinions "have no logic". Seems to me like your doing exactly what you claim that I do. Which I admit, I have been a bit arrogant, but so have you.

And if you have posted "historical" links and topics, post the links so we can look at them. Saves a lot of trouble searching for them. That's all I ask for. Is that a reasonable request?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

yep:

jews.jpg

What do the above have in common? All Jews. But certainly not their race.

either their grandmothers were jewish or they converted to jedism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

either their grandmothers were jewish or they converted to jedism.

Quite wrong again Danny, quite wrong. The precept of matriarchal inheritance of Judaism comes from the Talmud, which would place us in Christian Era times. The oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah dates from about 200 CE. Even if the law is older than the Talmud it cannot be any younger than 67 BC as it evidently was conceived to react to the Roman occupation.

In previous times, at least as far as can be traced (about 600 BC), people had to convert and conversion, especially the conversion of a spouse, was quite common.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW
what you do is you just compare those opinions to your hard

"israel is always right arabs always wrong " opinion

Right, Knight. Here a topic I posted which isn't in favour of Israel:

Israel Continues Hardline Policies

And here's some which show Israel as a more humane nation:

Burnt Korans replaced in West Bank

Netanyahu wants regular talks with Abbas to continue peace talks

Turkey and Israel hold talks in order to mend relations

All topics have links to the sites which I had procured the topics from. So, Knight. What do you have to say about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Quite wrong again Danny, quite wrong. The precept of matriarchal inheritance of Judaism comes from the Talmud, which would place us in Christian Era times. The oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah dates from about 200 CE. Even if the law is older than the Talmud it cannot be any younger than 67 BC as it evidently was conceived to react to the Roman occupation.

In previous times, at least as far as can be traced (about 600 BC), people had to convert and conversion, especially the conversion of a spouse, was quite common.

gee iam sorry i thought you was talking about the three people who are pictured i dont believe that they lived before 600bc at least i havent heard of colored photos from that time period. i wont even mention the pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.