CV's Copy - ISRAEL-HAMAS

[CountValentine]

I'm not saying there is no element of rage or vengeance at all, but saying it like that without consideration for any facts on the ground is just dishonest.

Let me know if I have the facts right.
They are in a war zone.
There is a firefight going on.
Individuals that are shirtless and waving a white flag are approaching.
They shoot and kill these individuals.
Do I have the facts correct?

[yelped]

Let me know if I have the facts right.
They are in a war zone.
There is a firefight going on.
Individuals that are shirtless and waving a white flag are approaching.
They shoot and kill these individuals.
Do I have the facts correct?

Let's note which post you didn't respond to and the point that you keep on ignoring. I forgot that a conversation with you always ends with Chaim spinning on a wheel and eating pretzels. I'm done for now.

[smurf]

Conjure up an image how you would feel. Just because you have rage that doesn't equate to a killing spree.

Maybe rage is the wrong word to use or should leave out consumed?

Anyway, I have clear picture how this was covered as I went back and read the posts @notyettaken linked to.

It was covered the same way the incident about the car approaching a tank, turning around and leaving then blown to pieces. They even convinced themselves in that discussion that there was a gun flash that was later shown to be the reflection of the sun on the window.

Yes i get it, there have been multiple stories of wrongful killings in this war, like almost any other war.
Innocent civilians, friendly fire, aid worker and hostages.

You seem to have decided that the commonality of all incidents is that the soldiers are acting with rage and vengeance and maybe just taking a chill pill would have saved them all.

The rest of us here are inclined to believe that these were all unfortunate accidents born out of fear and fog of war.

Either way, if there is an EC effect in play here, it goes both ways.

[dasmo801]

Conjure up an image how you would feel. Just because you have rage that doesn't equate to a killing spree.

Maybe rage is the wrong word to use or should leave out consumed?

Anyway, I have clear picture how this was covered as I went back and read the posts @notyettaken linked to.

It was covered the same way the incident about the car approaching a tank, turning around and leaving, then blown to pieces. They even convinced themselves in that discussion that there was a gun flash that was later shown to be the reflection of the sun on the window.

These are typical friendly fire/mistaken target incidents that happen in every single war in recorded history, regardless of the level of rage consumage of the people fighting.
The hyper focus on those incidents in this war is what is unique.

[smurf]

Let me know if I have the facts right.
They are in a war zone.
There is a firefight going on.
Individuals that are shirtless and waving a white flag are approaching.
They shoot and kill these individuals.
Do I have the facts correct?

You have the facts correct, but you don't have all the facts

being in a war zone where terrorists dressed as civilians pop out for you out of everywhere (and even play recordings of Israelis talking Hebrew or babies crying to trick the soldiers into letting their guard down when entering buildings where they are hiding waiting to ambush them)

[CountValentine]

Let's note which post you didn't respond to and the point that you keep on ignoring.

Lets also note the non-echo gets bombarded with questions from everywhere. Missing one some questions is to be expected.

Which post do you want a response to?

[CountValentine]

You have the facts correct, but you don't have all the facts

Wouldn't that be a reason why you feel they made a mistake?

[yelped]

Lets also note the non-echo gets bombarded with questions from everywhere. Missing one some questions is to be expected.

Which post do you want a response to?

Please don't play victim. You can ask and answer as many as questions as anyone else here.

Seriously? You don't understand why I take umbrage at your statement? Saying they acted out of rage and vengeance is a malicious slur. Especially, when you can just as easily say that it was caused by other factors as explained earlier numerous times.

[aygart]

That would be an opinion as I stated mine.
What isn't opinion is they made a bad decision.

My whole point was to see how this was covered here and not to blame the soldiers. I got my answer.

No it is not an opinion, it is entirely CONJECTURE and being made up with zero basis in fact based entirely on a person's biases in this war. What can be known is that it was a split second decision under extreme pressure and that is it. This is for either way. Most likely is that it is a mix of ALL of the pressure.

[smurf]

Wouldn't that be a reason why you feel they made a mistake?

Of course i think they made a mistake, killing the very hostages you are there to rescue is clearly the most egregious friendly fire mistake possible.

The difference is that you took it as an opportunity to criticize the soldiers as rage filled, and leveraged it to blame them for the other accidental deaths
While most us of took it as proof of how terrible the situation most be for theses young soldiers as obviously they would never kill their own on purpose, so likely the rest were mistakes as well.

[CountValentine]

No it is not an opinion, it is entirely CONJECTURE and being made up with zero basis in fact based entirely on a person's biases in this war.

It is opinion based on my experience. Like you I grew up during the Vietnam war. My two older brothers both served. One flew numerous combat missions and the other received the Purple Heart for injuries received. I have no bias in this war. My view would be called out as BS by members here if it was clearly stated.

What can be known is that it was a split second decision under extreme pressure and that is it.

That is your opinion.

[CountValentine]

Of course i think they made a mistake, killing the very hostages you are there to rescue is clearly the most egregious friendly fire mistake possible.

The difference is that you took it as an opportunity to criticize the soldiers as rage filled, and leveraged it to blame them for the other accidental deaths
While most us of took it as proof of how terrible the situation most be for theses young soldiers as obviously they would never kill their own on purpose, so likely the rest were mistakes as well.

You keep saving I blame the soldiers. Others pick up on that lie. The EC just keeps getting bigger.
They made a MISTAKE!!! That is not blaming them. The disagreement is what caused that mistake.

[yelped]

You keep saving I blame the soldiers. Others pick up on that lie. The EC just keeps getting bigger.
They made a MISTAKE!!! That is not blaming them. The disagreement is what caused that mistake.

Still not responding and still not addressing the point. <Hamster wheel> <pretzel>

[CountValentine]

Still not responding and still not addressing the point. <Hamster wheel> <pretzel>

You made a point of why you think the soldiers made a mistake. My opinion is different.
I addressed it several times. You can't see/hear it in your EC.

[CountValentine]

CV: Blowing up car - mistake (most likely)
Killing your own - mistake
Killing aid workers - mistake

DDF EC: You are blaming the soldiers. 

[jj1000]

CV: Blowing up car - mistake (most likely)
Killing your own - mistake
Killing aid workers - mistake

DDF EC: You are blaming the soldiers. 

Liekly because of your initial wording.... It speaks to intent.

[CountValentine]

Liekly because of your initial wording.... It speaks to intent.

My initial wording explained why I thought the MISTAKE was made. You want to disagree with the "why" that is fair gave.

Trying to twist it as I am blaming the soldiers is not fair.

I was surprised to see @Dan join the EC some time ago. Please don't do the same. 

[yelped]

You made a point of why you think the soldiers made a mistake. My opinion is different.
I addressed it several times. You can't see/hear it in your EC.

No, you never responded to the point. You keep on talking about how it's just an opinion blah blah. Will post again.

Seriously? You don't understand why I take umbrage at your statement? Saying they acted out of rage and vengeance is a malicious slur. Especially, when you can just as easily say that it was caused by other factors as explained earlier numerous times.

[smurf]

You keep saving I blame the soldiers. Others pick up on that lie. The EC just keeps getting bigger.
They made a MISTAKE!!! That is not blaming them. The disagreement is what caused that mistake.

If you would have just said it was a mistake, i would not have argued. But you added the part about anger and vengeance

But perhaps our disagreement then is talmudic in nature.
In talmudic law, a man cannot absolve himself just because it was a "mistake" damages most still be paid and even accidental deaths carry some sort of punishment (exile vs death penalty)
The only time one can be absolved from killing another is when there was no other choice i.e. if that person is threatening their life.

You claim was the former, i claim they had reason to believe the latter.
Or in talmudic terms you say they were a shogeg(mistake) i say it was korev leoness (bordering on not having another choice)

[smurf]

My initial wording explained why I thought the MISTAKE was made. You want to disagree with the "why" that is fair gave.

Trying to twist it as I am blaming the soldiers is not fair.

I was surprised to see @Dan join the EC some time ago. Please don't do the same. 

So you agree that it was a mistake, but that it was out of anger and vengeance?
Are we then allowed to blame the ones who made them angry? i.e. Hamas?

If so while we may have gotten there on different paths we are once again in complete agreement