[quote=S485122;158728]You have to be a member to see it... I can't.[/quote]
Neither do I, but it could be [URL="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=Strip-Maul"]this[/URL] clip or the [URL="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=213378"]entire episode[/URL]. The whole episode contains comments about Gaza, including the interview with David Gregory.[URL="http://www.thedailyshow.com?"][/URL]

Indeed. That is the clip. Thanks for the link Sturle.

[quote=garo;158664]Which of these devices has been used in this thread by which poster is left to the interested reader as an exercise.

[URL]http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0113/1231738220178.html[/URL][/quote]Why don't you spell out your accusation(s) instead of tarring all those you've disagreed with, via innuendo?

(Or shall I point out which items from the article [I]could[/I] apply to [I]you[/I] (among others), [I]if[/I] we were not to take all relevant information into account?

Not that I want to make it seem that you're deliberately trying to justify Palestinian atrocity; I just want to illustrate that in an emotional discussion like this it's easy to misunderstand or distort stuff and assign unsavory motives to others.

Having unwittingly done some of that when I was younger,

then having gradually learned better,

and nowadays wishing to short-circuit that sort of tactic,

I now generally prefer to state things more straightforwardly

instead of using the trick of engaging the reader's imagination in order to magnify the negative implications of one's unspecific accusations.

I don't always succeed in the latter (i.e., stating straightforwardly), but it is one of my goals.

This weekend, I'll work on overly-long sentence reduction.)

To use an analogy (with the limitations thereof):

Innuendo vs. Direct accusation is like asymmetrical warfare -- guerrilla (innuendo) vs. conventional (direct accusation).

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

This forum is sorta like an open plain, in that all the words are out in the open.

Choosing to make a guerrilla attack out in the open plain can be a mistake, because it's so easy for the conventional side to defeat/defend it. Of course, making a conventional attack out in the open is also risky; there [I]are[/I] "antitank" rhetorical weapons, so to speak. But when the guerrilla side just launches an attack out in the open like that, it can be easy to pick them off or at least spotlight them, like exposing innuendo (veiled accusation) for what it is.

[QUOTE]Why don't you spell out your accusation(s) instead of tarring all those you've disagreed with, via innuendo?

(Or shall I point out which items from the article [I]could[/I] apply to [I]you[/I] (among others), [I]if[/I] we were not to take all relevant information into account?[/QUOTE]

I think we will all be better off if we looked at ourselves in the mirror and looked at where we have used these devices. I for one have been doing the same. An example of that was the quick response to you where I agreed about your post regarding Bill O'Reilly. I would like to see evidence of similar introspection from tha, and perhaps from you.

PS: My comment to the interested reader was not a "biased" one. I was inviting the reader to apply the same standards to both sides in this argument. The innuendo there was in your mind, not in my words. Parse them again carefully.

[quote=garo;158920]I think we will all be better off if we looked at ourselves in the mirror and looked at where we have used these devices.[/quote]I can agree with that. :-)

Back on topic, allegations and evidence of war crimes keep mounting. I consider Hamas' firing rockets on civilians as war crimes. Most of the world seems to agree and has branded them as terrorists. But I fail to understand why state terrorism, even in the face of clear evidence and especially when it has killed 100 times as many innocent people is not condemned similarly strongly.

Recent headlines:
1. White phosphorus shells land on UN refugee agency warehouses. White phosphorus is banned under international law as is shelling of clearly marked civilian facilities.
2. It was the second time in this conflict that Israel has alleged that militants have used a UN compound to launch attacks. UNRWA's head in Gaza, John Ging, said the claim "was nonsense".
3. The compound was one of several civilian institutions hit as troops moved into Gaza City, taking control of three neighbourhoods. Shells struck a hospital and a building housing international media, even though the military reportedly checked the co-ordinates of the structure hours before it was hit.4. In a terse statement, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said the damage to the al-Quds hospital was "completely and utterly unacceptable based on every known standard of international humanitarian law".
5. Death toll of civilians killed in Israeli bombing exceeds 700. More than 4000 have been wounded and maimed, the vast majority of them civilians.

[quote=cheesehead;158922]I can agree with that. :-)[/quote]
Would you care to reply to my post-script in that posting then?

[QUOTE=garo;158925]Back on topic, allegations and evidence of war crimes keep mounting. I consider Hamas' firing rockets on civilians as war crimes. .[/QUOTE]

A general principle of law is that there are no accidents in the commission
of a crime. Any "accidents" are the responsibility of those commiting the
crime.

It is also a general principle that one is allowed to used
deadly force in self-defense. *any* kind of force is justified.

If Israel, in *defending itself against a crime* causes "collateral damage",
then the responsibilty must lie with those committing the crime in the
first place, not Israel.

Secondly, the militants themselves can mitigate all collateral damage
by separating themselves from the civilian population. It is they who
bear the blame for civilian deaths because like cowards, they are hiding
behind women and children. Any responsibility for civilian deaths
is theirs.

Finally, as a philosophical principle, allow me to say that the notion
that one can separate civilians from the military in modern warfare
is archaic and unrealistic. Civilians provide supplies, munitions, food,
and other logistical support for the military and thus are an inherent
part of any war. I think the distinction between 'civilian' and military is
not realizable in modern warfare. Anyone who believes otherwise is
living in fantasy land. We no longer have battles where the armies
separate themselves from civilians and do isolated battle on some field.
When the military does things like storing munitions among civilians,
those munitions are legitimate targets and the civilians must pay the
consequences. When civilians build bombs in factories, the factories
and the people building the bombs are legitimate targets.

This is the way the world is. Wailing against its "injustice" solves
nothing.

BTW, I don't see any of the Middle Eastern countries offering land to
form a Palestinian state.......

[quote=R.D. Silverman;158933]
It is also a general principle that one is allowed to used
deadly force in self-defense. *any* kind of force is justified.
[/quote]

Your assertion is incorrect. Force may be used in self-defence but it still has to be within the parameters of international law and not be a war crime. *Any* kind of force is NOT justified. Only proportionate force which takes due care not to harm civilians is justified. A war crime in response to a war crime is NOT justified.

[quote]
BTW, I don't see any of the Middle Eastern countries offering land to
form a Palestinian state.......[/quote]Why should they? It is Israel that has stolen Palestinian land. You must agree that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land? Withdraw to 1967 borders and the whole problem will be much more easily solved.

PS: Bob, if we apply your logic, I would argue that Israel's occupation of Palestinian land - in direct contravention of international law - is the original crime and Hamas' firing of rockets is in self-defence against a foreign occupier and thus justified. Note I do not agree with this logic and believe a war crime is a war crime regardless of the provocation.

[QUOTE=garo;158939]Your assertion is incorrect. Force may be used in self-defence but it still has to be within the parameters of international law and not be a war crime. *Any* kind of force is NOT justified. Only proportionate force which takes due care not to harm civilians is justified. A war crime in response to a war crime is NOT justified.

Why should they? It is Israel that has stolen Palestinian land. You must agree that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land? .[/QUOTE]

No, I do not agree.
With anything you say.