Support NeoGAF

[DemonSwordsman]

Burden of proof is not on Israel IMO. And the story is absolutely spin. I'm nearly positive on that. At a minimum it's poorly researched. See my last quote for why.

Well everyone in the world knows the IDF is the largest terrorist oraganization in the world except zoinists or dumbass americans.

They do shit like this all the time so there is no need to be surprised.

 

[Kinitari]

Well everyone in the world knows the IDF is the largest terrorist oraganization in the world except zoinists or dumbass americans.

They do shit like this all the time so there is no need to be surprised.

See, shit like this is why criticizing the IDF when they actually do fuck up is so hard. Because people will so readily say dumb stuff like this.

 

[Jonm1010]

The anonymous testimony of thirty supposed IDF troops?

And of course it doesn't mean that the case being presented is false. Nor does it mean that it's true. If faith in this story was a religion, I would be an atheist.

So was deepthroat not to be believed? How about Seymour Hersh's anonymous sources a year ago that hinted at the recent CIA program that got shut down? How about Valerie Plame? The logic that somehow unnamed sources mean they are making false allegations is absolutely horseshit. The fact that you have taken the side to assume that they are most likely false and not even taken the side of 50/50 and hoping to do further research on the methods and legitimacy of these testimonies shows pretty clearly that you are doing exactly as I said before.

An objective person would probably say, hmm, interesting, this may or may not have some legs, i'll keep an eye on it, i'll look into the methodolgy or the track record of the interviewees. Search for additional info if its available, weigh their argument with the counter argument. A biased person finds excuses to dismiss it. Guess where everyone sees you fitting into?

 

[Atrophis]

This just corroborates the findings of Amnesty International:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8128210.stm

 

[nyong]

The logic that somehow unnamed sources mean they are making false allegations is absolutely horseshit.

And of course it doesn't mean that the case being presented is false. Nor does it mean that it's true.

.

 

[Espada]

This is the only thing that needs to be quoted, the rest is just window dressing on the terror exercised by a rogue state with US taxpayer support.

Well said. The figures alone are ridiculous, and all this story does is shed more light on what was happening on the ground.

 

[nyong]

This just corroborates the findings of Amnesty International:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8128210.stm

How convenient for them.

So I hope the next time Fox News reports on an anonymous source confirming a chemical weapon's program in Saddam's Iraq people won't be so quick to dismiss this brave yet anonymous Middle Eastern deep throat.

EDIT: Just so you're aware, this actually happened. In fact, part of the justification for going to war was based on similar intelligence. I hope you're intellectual consistent about anonymous testimony.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Gaza is already the biggest open air prison. The Jewish lobby is big in the world.

Jews should be reminded of their past.

 

[Jonm1010]

.

and then you say shit like this:

My only intention in using that quote was to point out that the story is spin. If they can't get the obviously factual stuff right, why should I trust the rest of what they say?

Where you are somehow claiming that spin = the original testimony is false. You are talking out of both sides.

 

[Kinitari]

How convenient for them.

So I hope the next time Fox News reports on an anonymous source confirming a chemical weapon's program in Saddam's Iraq people won't be so quick to dismiss this brave yet anonymous Middle Eastern deep throat.

It's one thing to have some dude say some stuff far away without any sort of evidence whatsoever (mind you, was still enough for the United states government, so maybe this is enough for them too eh?) - but when multiple humanitarian agencies will condemn the IDF and claim warcrimes - organizations that were in Gaza WHILE the assault happened, and more and more accounts keep surfacing that solidify the claims, well it's a little bit harder to just dismiss because it doesn't necessarily have names attached. While I can respect the desire to not get overly worked up and jump to conclusions - the conclusions have already come about, now we are just trying to figure out just how BADLY the IDF fucked up - not whether or not they did.

 

[Zeliard]

Nyong, you are exceptionally naive.

 

[nyong]

and then you say shit like this:

Where you are somehow claiming that spin = the original testimony is false. You are talking out of both sides.

The story is absolutely spin and until I see the same testimony in another source that is not simply quoting the source in the OP I'm going to largely dismiss it. Of course I'm open to new evidence as well.

Like I said, it may or not be true. But I need proof before I get outraged.

 

[Zenith]

People who still pretend Israel didn't slaughter civilians wholesale will never believe it even if you put proof right in front of them. We've even got that video of a white phosphorus cluster bomb landing in a town square (used only for illumination! napalm also makes a great illuminator).

 

[jtb]

Lets face it, the majority of the bullshit that both sides put up makes me skeptical about how true this actually is. If it is true, I wouldn't be suprised, but it sure is unsettling. That said, I'm skeptical of the legitimacy of this report.

Edit: Wait, agrees with an Amnesty International report? That is pretty fucked up.

 

[Calcaneus]

I liked it better when they were making Palestinians horny with gum or whatever that article was about yesterday.

 

[Jonm1010]

How convenient for them.

So I hope the next time Fox News reports on an anonymous source confirming a chemical weapon's program in Saddam's Iraq people won't be so quick to dismiss this brave yet anonymous Middle Eastern deep throat.

EDIT: Just so you're aware, this actually happened. In fact, part of the justification for going to war was based on similar intelligence. I hope you're intellectual consistent about anonymous testimony.

Not all sources are created equal and each should be weighed accordingly. But when someone attempts to use that general concept of teetering legitimacy as a way to dismiss 30 peoples testimony without any actual case evidence to support the need to dismiss it, as you did earlier in the thread, its very telling.

If your argument had stemmed from extensive research into this particular case you wouldnt have been ridiculled. But your argument at the beginning of the thread amounted to unnammed sources can be unreliabe, the media spins stuff, therefore these thirty sources should be dismissed. It reeks of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and if my accussations are wrong, at the very least you should understand exactly why people would get that impression from your posts.

 

[nyong]

Nyong, you are exceptionally naive.

Project much?

I spent 8 years in the military. The story in the OP is written for angsty teenagers and ignorant civilians with no real perspective on the matter. Which should be obvious by their blatant manipulation of largely known (or should be known) facts.

 

[Zenith]

But Breaking the Silence has a long - and to many, credible - record in getting soldiers to talk about experiences which might not reflect well on the army.

funny how people skip over this. What conflict of interest does the organsiation have exactly that wouyld make them spread such slanderous lies? Maybe it's just a huge conspiracy against Israel!

Witness testimony is allowed as evidence in cases you know.

 

[Jonm1010]

The story is absolutely spin and until I see the same testimony in another source that is not simply quoting the source in the OP I'm going to largely dismiss it. Of course I'm open to new evidence as well.

Like I said, it may or not be true. But I need proof before I get outraged.

BBC did there own independent reporting on it. I even posted it for you. NPR even had there own story on it. And again plese show me how spin somehow means that the facts presented from the testimony are somehow false? Im still waiting for how you wrangle that shitty logic as well.

 

[nyong]

Not all sources are created equal and each should be weighed accordingly.

It's kind of hard to weigh anonymous testimony, wouldn't you say?

BBC did there own independent reporting on it. I even posted it for you.

The BBC article does not confirm a shoot-first policy by the IDF. Nor does it even discuss Israel using human shields.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's kind of hard to weight anonymous testimony, wouldn't you say?

Not necissarilly. But it takes stepping out of your biases and looking objectively and trying to determine the validity of relevent variables. Kinda like what kinatari just said.

 

[Kinitari]

It's kind of hard to weight anonymous testimony, wouldn't you say?

Anonymous Testimony from an established and credible organization that has a long standing history of getting anonymous testimonial from soldiers that do not want to compromise themselves by confessing things they fear may not sit well with their army.

This isn't some guy with a yellow legal pad and a ball point pen.

 

[Blader]

Well everyone in the world knows the IDF is the largest terrorist oraganization in the world except zoinists or dumbass americans.

They do shit like this all the time so there is no need to be surprised.

smh

You undermine legitimate arguments against the IDF with bullshit like this.

 

[fortified_concept]

I for one am shocked. The supporters of this terrorist state were calling amnesty international and the UN antisemites when they were talking about Israel's war crimes. I guess they're find an excuse for this one too. Some people choose to be blind.

 

[Chichikov]

This is completely unacceptable, anyone who defend such practices should be ashamed.
However, such threads always bring the people who come up with fortified (hurr hurr) positions and doesn’t even bother reading the article.
This is about disregard of innocent life and breaking of international laws, this is not about intentional and systematic killing of Palestinians.
And really, if that was the case, you’d think those who made these testimonies would stop short at mentioning it?
But whatever, this is a GAF thread, by the time I press the post button this is probably already devolved into blind IDF apologists vs. destroy the criminal Zionists "discussion".

Edit: oh look, king clueless is already here on his unicorn, we’re only missing the dude with the Sly (from Cobra) avatar.

 

[Blader]

Edit: oh look, king clueless is already here on his unicorn, we’re only missing the dude with the Sly (from Cobra) avatar.

:lol

 

[nyong]

Anonymous Testimony from an established and credible organization that has a long standing history of getting anonymous testimonial from soldiers that do not want to compromise themselves by confessing things they fear may not sit well with their army.

This does not address my question. Who are these soldiers? What was their service record like? Would they have any particular personal reason to speak out against the military? Why only 30 troops among countless thousands? Why was at least one of the troops quoted not aware of standard military and police rules of engagement across the entire world?

 

[Herpes Reasons]

I for one am shocked. The supporters of this terrorist state were calling amnesty international and the UN antisemites when they were talking about Israel's war crimes. I guess they're find an excuse for this one too. Some people choose to be blind.

your the most butthurt apologist when it comes to these topics.
also, paging fio. this thread doesn't become epic until fortified and fio duke it out for moral supremacy.

 

[fortified_concept]

This is completely unacceptable, anyone who defend such practices should be ashamed.
However, such threads always bring the people who come up with fortified (hurr hurr) positions and doesn’t even bother reading the article.
This is about disregard of innocent life and breaking of international laws, this is not about intentional and systematic killing of Palestinians.
And really, if that was the case, you’d think those who made these testimonies would stop short at mentioning it?
But whatever, this is a GAF thread, by the time I press the post button this is probably already devolved into blind IDF apologists vs. destroy the criminal Zionists "discussion".

Edit: oh look, king clueless is already here on his unicorn, we’re only missing the dude with the Sly (from Cobra) avatar.

Oh look king apologist tries to appear moderate while defending Israel like he did in every other Gaza conflict thread.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's kind of hard to weigh anonymous testimony, wouldn't you say?

The BBC article does not confirm a shoot-first policy by the IDF. Nor does it even discuss Israel using human shields.

It reports on the results of the interviews with the anonymous testimony. that testimony collaborates with independent reports from several countries in Europe inclluding Britain and Norway, The Un, Amnesty International, Human rights watch, The Arab League, Various media outlets like the BBC, NPR, Democracy Now, and a slew of others. Are you saying that all of those findings and reports are bunk as well? Because the way you are dismissing this testimony only seems to make sense if you have concluded that all those other groups are lying as well?

 

[nyong]

It reports on the results of the interviews with the anonymous testimony. that testimony collaborates with independent reports from several countries in Europe inclluding Britain and Norway, The Un, Amnesty International, Human rights watch, The Arab League, Various media outlets like the BBC, NPR, Democracy Now, and a slew of others. Are you saying that all of those findings and reports are bunk as well? Because the way you are dismissing this testimony only seems to make sense if you have concluded that all those other groups are lying as well?

The BBC article does not confirm a shoot-first policy by the IDF. Nor does it even discuss Israel using human shields.

 

[fortified_concept]

your the most butthurt apologist when it comes to these topics.
also, paging fio. this thread doesn't become epic until fortified and fio duke it out for moral supremacy.

Apologist for what? I'm not the one defending Israel's war crimes. I think you're a little confused.

 

[Calcaneus]

Oh look king apologist tries to appear moderate while defending Israel like he did in every other Gaza conflict thread.

All I saw in that post was a condemnation of the actions listed in the article. Apologist? Srsly?

 

[Zeliard]

The BBC article does not confirm a shoot-first policy by the IDF. Nor does it even discuss Israel using human shields.

Perhaps you have some difficulty reading, which would hardly be a surprise. You don't seem very well-educated.

However, Amnesty does accuse Israel of using civilians, including children, as human shields in Gaza, forcing them to remain in houses which its troops were using as military positions, and to inspect sites suspected of being booby trapped.

 

[Kinitari]

This does not address my question. Who are these soldiers? What was their service record like? Would they have any particular personal reason to speak out against the military? Why only 30 troops among countless thousands? Why was at least one of the troops quoted not aware of standard military and police rules of engagement across the entire world?

The unfortunate reality about getting soldier testimonial is that most of it is going to be completely anonymous - so you can't get their rank, name and address no matter how bad you want it. Why it was 30? Who knows - maybe only 30 came forward, maybe they only need 30, maybe they could only get to 30? The standard military procedure quote? Maybe that troop thought it was important enough to get quoted? Maybe the context into which the quote has been taken is the most important thing about the quote?

 

[nyong]

The unfortunate reality about getting soldier testimonial is that most of it is going to be completely anonymous - so you can't get their rank, name and address no matter how bad you want it. Why it was 30? Who knows - maybe only 30 came forward, maybe they only need 30, maybe they could only get to 30? Maybe that troop thought it was important enough to get quoted? Maybe the context into which the quote has been taken is the most important thing about the quote?

My point is, you cannot weigh their testimony because you do not know who they are. You can't dismiss it outright, but nor can you use it as evidence.

 

[Chichikov]

Oh look king apologist tries to appear moderate while defending Israel like he did in every other Gaza conflict thread.

I told you before and I will tell you again, I’m a member of B’Tselm and Checkpoint Watch (although admittedly, not nearly as active since I’ve moved to the US), the only party I’ve ever voted for is Hadash.
(That’s fine, I’ll give you a moment to educate yourself about those terms).
I was beaten, called a traitor, tear gassed and arrested for trying to protect human rights in the occupied territories and further the Palestinian cause for self-determination.

You’ve never been to the occupied territories, I bet you’ve never met a Palestinian and you know fuck-all about how a military works.
You don’t have the most basic understanding of the historical and political context of this conflict.
And yet you feel somehow qualified to grade my posts on the subject.

I will not tolerate being called an apologist by a clueless internet warrior who knows not what he’s talking about.
Seriously, fuck off.

 

[Jonm1010]

This does not address my question. Who are these soldiers? What was their service record like? Would they have any particular personal reason to speak out against the military? Why only 30 troops among countless thousands? Why was at least one of the troops quoted not aware of standard military and police rules of engagement across the entire world?

Something tells me answering every one of your questions still would do nothing to change your opinion of dismissing their testimony.

How about testimony from a guy who saw his children shot dead and were refused from command to let him carry his son 1 block to a hospital as reported on Democracy Now? Or the report out of the BBC were 30 civillians were held up in a building and waived a white flag. They sent out the women and children frist and from 15 feet away the Israelli soldiers fired on them and killed all of them?

i could point to you the countless other testimonies out of the the newspaper Haaretz.

Something tells me nothing is going to convince you of wrongdoing and any overwhelming evidence will just be chalked up as "others do it too"

 

[Kinitari]

My point is, you cannot weigh their testimony because you do not know who they are. You can't dismiss it outright, but nor can you use it as evidence.

By who's standards? Yours? Just because you find no credibility in anonymous testimonials (gathered by a well established organization that gathers anonymous testimonials from soldiers that are worried about giving testimonials mind you) - does not mean everyone else can just as easily dismiss it (as non-evidence). It would probably be nice to know exactly who these soldiers saying these things are - but I am sure a lot of people have that same sentiment for a lot of different reasons.

 

[nyong]

Perhaps you have some difficulty reading, which would hardly be a surprise. You don't seem very well-educated.

I'd wager that I'm a fair bit more intelligent and level-headed than you are.

But yeah, I overlooked that one bit. That still does not confirm that Israeli soldiers leveled guns on the shoulders of Palestinians while they went door-to-door. But yeah....firing from the same building that children are in is bad. Nor does it confirm that the IDF has a "policy" of doing such things, nor does it confirm a "policy" of shooting first and asking questions later Dirty Harry style. In other words, I still have good reason to question the OP.

As I clearly stated earlier, it's not that I have never been outraged at IDF actions. I have. But there is so much sensational bullshit floating around that it's nearly impossible to filter out fact from fiction. So I'm extremely cautious about what I read.

 

[Jonm1010]

The BBC article does not confirm a shoot-first policy by the IDF. Nor does it even discuss Israel using human shields.

From my BBC article:

Other allegations in the testimonies of the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers include:

• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers

 

[Jonm1010]

I'd wager that I'm a fair bit more intelligent and level-headed than you are.

But yeah, I overlooked that one bit. That still does not confirm that Israeli soldiers leveled guns on the shoulders of Palestinians while they went door-to-door. But yeah....firing from the same building that children are in is bad. Nor does it confirm that the IDF has a "policy" of doing such things, nor does it confirm a "policy" of shooting first and asking questions later Dirty Harry style. In other words, I still have good reason to question the OP.

You will never find the IDF confirm that. My Lai wasnt even fuly disclosed for thrity years. But once again, the fact that you are falling back to the IDF as your voice of reason and authority on what is and isnt true is another telling sign.

You may be intellignet but your logic and arguing skills are elementary.

 

[Zenith]

I told you before and I will tell you again, I’m a member of B’Tselm and Checkpoint Watch (although admittedly, not nearly as active since I’ve moved to the US), the only party I’ve ever voted for is Hadash.
(That’s fine, I’ll give you a moment to educate yourself about those terms).
I was beaten, called a traitor, tear gassed and arrested for trying to protect human rights in the occupied territories and further the Palestinian cause for self-determination.

You’ve never been to the occupied territories, I bet you’ve never met a Palestinian and you know fuck-all about how a military works.
You don’t have the most basic understanding of the historical and political context of this conflict.
And yet you feel somehow qualified to grade my posts on the subject.

I will not tolerate being called an apologist by a clueless internet warrior who knows not what he’s talking about.
Seriously, fuck off.

effing smackdown.

 

[Jonm1010]

As I clearly stated earlier, it's not that I have never been outraged at IDF actions. I have. But there is so much sensational bullshit floating around that it's nearly impossible to filter out fact from fiction. So I'm extremely cautious about what I read.

The existence of sensationalism or the existence previous erroneous stories is not grounds to dismiss this story. Again, shitty logic.

And i still want an answer

that testimony collaborates with independent reports from several countries in Europe inclluding Britain and Norway, The Un, Amnesty International, Human rights watch, The Arab League, Various media outlets like the BBC, Haaretz, NPR, Democracy Now, and a slew of others. Are you saying that all of those findings and reports are bunk as well? Because the way you are dismissing this testimony only seems to make sense if you have concluded that all those other groups are lying as well?

 

[Blader]

My point is, you cannot weigh their testimony because you do not know who they are. You can't dismiss it outright, but nor can you use it as evidence.

You're right in that anonymous testimony alone can't (or at least shouldn't) be used as evidence. But if it corroborates independent investigations already done by human rights groups, then you can't exactly ignore it.

 

[fortified_concept]

All I saw in that post was a condemnation of the actions listed in the article. Apologist? Srsly?

Maybe I'm wrong and this time he isn't spinning so I'll let the man speak for himself. Hey Chichikov did Israel commit war crimes and should some of its generals/politicians be arrested and trialled in the international court for crimes against humanity?

I told you before and I will tell you again, I’m a member of B’Tselm and Checkpoint Watch (although admittedly, not nearly as active since I’ve moved to the US), the only party I’ve ever voted for is Hadash.
(That’s fine, I’ll give you a moment to educate yourself about those terms).
I was beaten, called a traitor, tear gassed and arrested for trying to protect human rights in the occupied territories and further the Palestinian cause for self-determination.

You’ve never been to the occupied territories, I bet you’ve never met a Palestinian and you know fuck-all about how a military works.
You don’t have the most basic understanding of the historical and political context of this conflict.
And yet you feel somehow qualified to grade my posts on the subject.

I will not tolerate being called an apologist by a clueless internet warrior who knows not what he’s talking about.
Seriously, fuck off.

I'm not the one who started with the personal attacks, you were, so stop whining.

 

[nyong]

From my BBC article:

Human shields

The Amnesty report says no evidence was found that Palestinian militants had forced civilians to stay in buildings being used for military purposes, contradicting Israeli claims that Hamas repeatedly used "human shields".

However, Amnesty says Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups had endangered Palestinian civilians by firing rockets from residential neighbourhoods and storing weapons in them.

It says local residents had in one case told researchers that Hamas fighters had fired a rocket from the yard of a government school.

The Israeli military has repeatedly blamed Hamas for causing civilian casualties, saying its fighters operated from buildings like schools, medical facilities, religious institutions, residential homes and commercial premises.

In the cases it had investigated, Amnesty said civilian deaths "could not be explained as resulting from the presence of fighters shielding among civilians, as the Israeli army generally contends".

However, Amnesty does accuse Israel of using civilians, including children, as human shields in Gaza, forcing them to remain in houses which its troops were using as military positions, and to inspect sites suspected of being booby trapped.

It also says Palestinian militants rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was "indiscriminate and hence unlawful under international law", although it only rarely caused civilian casualties.

Hamas leader in Gaza Ismail Haniya declined to comment on the Amnesty International criticism, but said: "We believe the leaders of the occupation state must be tried for these crimes."

Thirteen Israelis were killed, including three civilians, during the offensive, which Israel launched with the declared aim of curtailing cross-border rocket attacks.

What am I missing here?

 

[nyong]

You will never find the IDF confirm that. My Lai wasnt even fuly disclosed for thrity years. But once again, the fact that you are falling back to the IDF as your voice of reason and authority on what is and isnt true is another telling sign.

I never said that the IDF was the voice of reason and authority.

 

[Calcaneus]

effing smackdown.

Ether levels.

 

[Jonm1010]

What am I missing here?

What? Answer my question

that testimony collaborates with independent reports from several countries in Europe inclluding Britain and Norway, The Un, Amnesty International, Human rights watch, The Arab League, Various media outlets like the BBC, Haaretz, NPR, Democracy Now, and a slew of others. Are you saying that all of those findings and reports are bunk as well? Because the way you are dismissing this testimony only seems to make sense if you have concluded that all those other groups are lying as well?