Did ANY of these protesters actually cross into Israel, past the fence?? Because if the IDF can shoot people who are only approaching a border, what is the limit on how far out they can use lethal force?? 100 feet, 100 yards, a mile?? Or is the actual answer most likely "whatever distance they decide". As mentioned in the post above, Israel's own self-made borders ALLOW these people to be there. Unless, of course, Israel doesn't believe that at all, and makes up the rules as they go along. Then again, why would we expect anything different from a military force who does stuff like mentioned in this article:
I know, I know. This hospital was clearly yet ANOTHER terrorist command post. The fact is that Israel views the entirety of the Palestinian territories as a de-facto terrorist command post, and every single person who resides in them as a potential terrorist, thus justifying ANY response, no matter how heinous.
Well, it's exactly the same rethoric as used to justify the Western "interventions" in the Middle East, including the recent war in Syria. There you'll also have speeches about how the coalition troops are only killing civillians, because the terrorists are using them as human shields etc.
Only if you count the civillian casualties commited by USA, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Russia, Turkey and their Middle East allies, they run much higher than the decades of the Gaza conflict. Yet if you compare the media coverage, the lack of retrospection in the Western media about our own killings is astounding.
And that, in my opinion, showcases the hypocrisy of the West. No one cares about the lives lost if it's the drones that we funded with our own taxes.
I agree with this and it's a timely reminder to consider the beam in our own eyes. I think the continual drone strikes by Western countries are indeed just as damaging to hopes of peace as the Israeli actions - and just as legally suspect.
Even if you consider the strikes on terrorists justified (and given that such strikes never act to save lives in the short term that is highly dubious), I don't understand how any country can simply write off the deaths of civilians in those strikes as collateral damage. There are investigations of the strikes carried out, but my impression of these is that they are overwhelmingly aimed at concealing what actually happened rather than revealing it. If we really considered that the strikes were worthwhile as a means of seeking peace, we should at a minimum be providing proper compensation to innocents caught up in them.
Consider how much outrage there's been in the UK about the Russian poisoning of Sergei Skripal. I think the concerns raised about the indiscriminate use of force in someone else's country are justified and Russia's actions should be heavily criticized - but so should our indiscriminate use of force in other people's countries.
It's my understanding that the U.S. already does pay off victims of drone strikes, sometimes even if we don't think anyone killed was innocent. The payments are just there to keep people quiet and minimize blowback.
Let's also not forget that the only people ever labeled as terrorists are those who commit illegal acts of violence outside the framework of a national military. Anything done in the framework of military action is exempt from having their motives questioned. If they bomb a marketplace, it's a slaughter. If the US/Israel bombs a hospital or wedding, it's collateral damage. The language itself has been twisted to absolve us before these acts even take place.
I don't understand how any country can simply write off the deaths of civilians in those strikes as collateral damage.
When you consider your political scapegoats as less than human you can justify any action or inhumane actions against them.
Yesterday, for example, Trump called undocumented immigrants "animals". And that's not the first time he's done that. You can treat animals worse than you'd treat people.
So if you can't understand how Israel indiscriminately shoots women and children it's because they don't see them as human beings. They are animals, evil or gulp Hamas! And they are told it's okay to kill them. If you don't understand it, congratulations you are not as racist who is seeing all of one group as animals indiscriminately.
I've seen some bizarre justifications for military murder. I talked to a veteren once who very vehemently insisted it was HIS GUNS FAULT that civilians died when he decided to open fire near a crowd of people.
In movies, we don't feel bad when thousands of faceless Stormtroopers are killed in Star Wars. It's fine if the bad guys who are slaughtered are Orcs, aliens, or robots.
The dehumanization thing has a long ugly history with Hitler referring to jews as animals and rats. That dehumanization makes it easier to justify and carry out inhuman acts.
The fact that Trump refers to immigrants as animals is deeply troubling. Either he really believes that or is using immigrants as a convenient scapegoat and a distraction for his most racist voters to fixate on. Possibly both. Very troubling and the sort of thing that can lead to genocide.
It's my understanding that the U.S. already does pay off victims of drone strikes, sometimes even if we don't think anyone killed was innocent. The payments are just there to keep people quiet and minimize blowback.
I don't think this is a realistic view. As I mentioned previously the US and other Western countries seem to have deliberately been concealing civilian casualties much of the time - effectively saying for instance that people have to prove that they are not ISIS supporters in Iraq before they can be counted as a civilian. As the bulk of casualties are not acknowledged no payments are made for those.
There have been a few cases where genuine compensation has been paid, e.g. Obama approved a payment of $1.2m to the family of an Italian aid worker killed by a drone strike. However, such compensation is extremely rare.
Much more common (at least in the past) were 'condolence' payments. These were payments made for both property losses and civilian casualties in countries where the US has been officially operating (such as Iraq). Those payments were not intended as compensation, however, but just an acknowledgement of loss to help make people feel better about the US - the payments were normally capped at $2,500 and never substantial. No payments have been made for drone strikes in countries where the US is not officially engaged (like Pakistan for instance where there have been hundreds of drone strikes). Even in Iraq and Syria the system for these condolence payments was never systematic and has now apparently broken down entirely (there have been no such payments made since 2014).
If you're interested in the topic you could have a look at this article from the NY Times. It's lengthy and much of it is about human interest stories, but it's also got quite a bit of information about the way compensation has (or has not) worked and covers the systematic under-reporting and concealment of civilian casualties.
I'm an accountant by profession and that may be why I like to see the true costs and benefits of actions identified - unless that's done it's much more difficult to be sure that proposed actions are worthwhile. I suspect if the true costs of the drone strikes were accounted for (not just the material cost of building and developing the equipment, but also the costs on the ground) there would be far, far fewer of these used in future.
Yesterday, for example, Trump called undocumented immigrants "animals". And that's not the first time he's done that. You can treat animals worse than you'd treat people.
That isn't exactly what he said; the video clip being shown is taken a little out of context. He was specifically referring to those who commit repeated acts of violence who also happen to be illegal immigrants. Still, it looks bad--politicians always have to be on the lookout for people willing to edit a video clip to make it appear as if one thing is being said when that is not what was being said.
Then again, Trump is not known for choosing his words wisely.
“Few communities have suffered worse at the hand of these MS-13 thugs than the people of Long Island. They have transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields. They are animals.” -Trump July 2017 speech to law enforcement officers on Long Island,NY
“These are animals. They cut people. They cut them. They cut them up in little pieces, and they want them to suffer. And we take them into our country.” - Trump Feb 2018
"We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy." - Trump May 17, 2018
Is he distinguishing between MS-13 and other immigrants? Not really he's grouping them all together. He doesn't mention the "good ones" he sometimes refers to. He doesn't mention the people that are living the dream, going to college, responsible citizens. The only thing he talks about are the worst example. He hits that fear mongering repeatedly.
It's the same as his Mexicans are 'Drug dealers, criminals, rapists' and a couple are okay. The emphasis is on the outrageous, not the tiny qualifier at the end.
Is he distinguishing between MS-13 and other immigrants? Not really he's grouping them all together. He doesn't mention the "good ones" he sometimes refers to. He doesn't mention the people that are living the dream, going to college, responsible citizens. The only thing he talks about are the worst example. He hits that fear mongering repeatedly.
At least now you are quoting him in his entirety rather than appearing to pick a sound byte and run with it. It is always acceptable to use a person's own words--in their entirety--against them...or at least make them take responsibility for what they say.
A lot of people paint with too broad a brush when speaking about other groups of people. "Republicans this", "Democrats that", "poor people such and such", "rich people blah blah blah", and so on and so forth. Such generalizations are not productive, producing only noise and getting in the way of actual discussion. Many politicians are especially bad about engaging in that behavior in an attempt to whip up a fervor among their support base.
*************
Trump needs to make up his mind about KJU--either ignore the apparent slow-down in negotiations and proceed with summits and peace accords between the South and the DPRK or default back to "business as usual" and keep the pressure on them. Similarly, KJU needs to make up his mind--either pull out of the agreements/summits completely and go back to "business as usual" or commit to peace in the peninsula and work hand-in-hand with the South.
Gina Haspel is now the Director of the CIA. The vote was 54-45, mostly along party lines; the Republicans who voted "no" include Rand Paul and Jeff Flake (McCain opposed her confirmation but did not vote due to health reasons) while the Democrats who voted "yes" include Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Bill Nelson.
Gina Haspel is now the Director of the CIA. The vote was 54-45, mostly along party lines; the Republicans who voted "no" include Rand Paul and Jeff Flake (McCain opposed her confirmation but did not vote due to health reasons) while the Democrats who voted "yes" include Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Bill Nelson.
Obama should have pursued charges against these people and she'd be in jail instead of rewarded with the top CIA job - ridiculous. I guess he figured she'd be through but Trump comes along and rewards her. Insane.
Instead he let her and the other torturers go and here we are today. Swell. But hey she said she's against torture in hindsight and that was enough to get the couple more votes she needed so she must really have learned her lesson. Eyeroll.
Gina Haspel is now the Director of the CIA. The vote was 54-45, mostly along party lines; the Republicans who voted "no" include Rand Paul and Jeff Flake (McCain opposed her confirmation but did not vote due to health reasons) while the Democrats who voted "yes" include Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Bill Nelson.
Obama should have pursued charges against these people and she'd be in jail instead of rewarded with the top CIA job - ridiculous. I guess he figured she'd be through but Trump comes along and rewards her. Insane.
Instead he let her and the other torturers go and here we are today. Swell. But hey she said she's against torture in hindsight and that was enough to get the couple more votes she needed so she must really have learned her lesson. Eyeroll.
I hear this argument alot, but what do you imagine Obama's first-term would have looked like if he had decided to actively prosecute Bush-regime torturers and those who advocated and signed off on the programs?? If you thought the right gave him a rough time as it was, I can't even imagine what kind of hoopla this would have set off in DC. I agree alot of this was illegal, but we've made it pretty clear that this stuff doesn't have consequences, it's hardly limited to what Obama did or didn't do. He signed an Executive Order outlawing torture by US officials (as if we should need one). And let's be clear, Trump not only explicitly endorses torture, but he also favors deliberately targeting and killing the family members of terrorists (or suspected terrorists). He is on the record saying so on numerous occasions.
There has been another mass shooting in Texas near Houston. I doubt this one will result in any new policies or action to prevent another mass shooting.
I predict that the next mass shooting will fail to prevent the one after that.
Obama didn't have the backbone to acomplish much, let alone prosecuting torturers.
Obama's main weakness (by far) was that he thought he was dealing with an opposition party acting in good faith for the first 6 years of his Presidency. He should have been dispelled of this notion after the first two years MAX.
There has been another mass shooting in Texas near Houston. I doubt this one will result in any new policies or action to prevent another mass shooting.
I predict that the next mass shooting will fail to prevent the one after that.
More blood sacrifices to our All-American gun god.
There has been another mass shooting in Texas near Houston. I doubt this one will result in any new policies or action to prevent another mass shooting.
I predict that the next mass shooting will fail to prevent the one after that.
More blood sacrifices to our All-American gun god.
The tree of gun manufacturers' profits must regularly be watered with the blood of children.
Also today some guy yelling about Trump opened fire at Trump Doral golf club in Florida. He didn't hurt anyone but was shot by police. Gun control needed or thoughts and prayers?
In what you would assume was an Onion headline if it didn't come from Republican Lt. Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick has now offered the latest hot take from the pro-gun crowd: the problem is that our schools have too many entrances and exits for shooters to take advantage of. Until there is a fire of course, and then hundreds of kids die from smoke inhalation.
Comments
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/07/israeli-forces-carry-out-violent-hospital-raids-in-ruthless-display-of-force/
I know, I know. This hospital was clearly yet ANOTHER terrorist command post. The fact is that Israel views the entirety of the Palestinian territories as a de-facto terrorist command post, and every single person who resides in them as a potential terrorist, thus justifying ANY response, no matter how heinous.
Even if you consider the strikes on terrorists justified (and given that such strikes never act to save lives in the short term that is highly dubious), I don't understand how any country can simply write off the deaths of civilians in those strikes as collateral damage. There are investigations of the strikes carried out, but my impression of these is that they are overwhelmingly aimed at concealing what actually happened rather than revealing it. If we really considered that the strikes were worthwhile as a means of seeking peace, we should at a minimum be providing proper compensation to innocents caught up in them.
Consider how much outrage there's been in the UK about the Russian poisoning of Sergei Skripal. I think the concerns raised about the indiscriminate use of force in someone else's country are justified and Russia's actions should be heavily criticized - but so should our indiscriminate use of force in other people's countries.
Yesterday, for example, Trump called undocumented immigrants "animals". And that's not the first time he's done that. You can treat animals worse than you'd treat people.
So if you can't understand how Israel indiscriminately shoots women and children it's because they don't see them as human beings. They are animals, evil or gulp Hamas! And they are told it's okay to kill them. If you don't understand it, congratulations you are not as racist who is seeing all of one group as animals indiscriminately.
The dehumanization thing has a long ugly history with Hitler referring to jews as animals and rats. That dehumanization makes it easier to justify and carry out inhuman acts.
The fact that Trump refers to immigrants as animals is deeply troubling. Either he really believes that or is using immigrants as a convenient scapegoat and a distraction for his most racist voters to fixate on. Possibly both. Very troubling and the sort of thing that can lead to genocide.
#never4get
There have been a few cases where genuine compensation has been paid, e.g. Obama approved a payment of $1.2m to the family of an Italian aid worker killed by a drone strike. However, such compensation is extremely rare.
Much more common (at least in the past) were 'condolence' payments. These were payments made for both property losses and civilian casualties in countries where the US has been officially operating (such as Iraq). Those payments were not intended as compensation, however, but just an acknowledgement of loss to help make people feel better about the US - the payments were normally capped at $2,500 and never substantial. No payments have been made for drone strikes in countries where the US is not officially engaged (like Pakistan for instance where there have been hundreds of drone strikes). Even in Iraq and Syria the system for these condolence payments was never systematic and has now apparently broken down entirely (there have been no such payments made since 2014).
If you're interested in the topic you could have a look at this article from the NY Times. It's lengthy and much of it is about human interest stories, but it's also got quite a bit of information about the way compensation has (or has not) worked and covers the systematic under-reporting and concealment of civilian casualties.
I'm an accountant by profession and that may be why I like to see the true costs and benefits of actions identified - unless that's done it's much more difficult to be sure that proposed actions are worthwhile. I suspect if the true costs of the drone strikes were accounted for (not just the material cost of building and developing the equipment, but also the costs on the ground) there would be far, far fewer of these used in future.
Then again, Trump is not known for choosing his words wisely.
“These are animals. They cut people. They cut them. They cut them up in little pieces, and they want them to suffer. And we take them into our country.” - Trump Feb 2018
"We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy." - Trump May 17, 2018
Is he distinguishing between MS-13 and other immigrants? Not really he's grouping them all together. He doesn't mention the "good ones" he sometimes refers to. He doesn't mention the people that are living the dream, going to college, responsible citizens. The only thing he talks about are the worst example. He hits that fear mongering repeatedly.
It's the same as his Mexicans are 'Drug dealers, criminals, rapists' and a couple are okay. The emphasis is on the outrageous, not the tiny qualifier at the end.
A lot of people paint with too broad a brush when speaking about other groups of people. "Republicans this", "Democrats that", "poor people such and such", "rich people blah blah blah", and so on and so forth. Such generalizations are not productive, producing only noise and getting in the way of actual discussion. Many politicians are especially bad about engaging in that behavior in an attempt to whip up a fervor among their support base.
*************
Trump needs to make up his mind about KJU--either ignore the apparent slow-down in negotiations and proceed with summits and peace accords between the South and the DPRK or default back to "business as usual" and keep the pressure on them. Similarly, KJU needs to make up his mind--either pull out of the agreements/summits completely and go back to "business as usual" or commit to peace in the peninsula and work hand-in-hand with the South.
Instead he let her and the other torturers go and here we are today. Swell. But hey she said she's against torture in hindsight and that was enough to get the couple more votes she needed so she must really have learned her lesson. Eyeroll.
I predict that the next mass shooting will fail to prevent the one after that.
This MAGA hat guy showed up at the school shooting to ? Tell us how school shootings Make America Great?
Also today some guy yelling about Trump opened fire at Trump Doral golf club in Florida. He didn't hurt anyone but was shot by police. Gun control needed or thoughts and prayers?
The hero you deserve!
In what you would assume was an Onion headline if it didn't come from Republican Lt. Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick has now offered the latest hot take from the pro-gun crowd: the problem is that our schools have too many entrances and exits for shooters to take advantage of. Until there is a fire of course, and then hundreds of kids die from smoke inhalation.
Walls, bars, armed guards, few entrances, metal detectors.