UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Yoadm]

Yes. In the case I outlined above, I agree with you. So when I am elected president of the world and a neighboring planet's flesh-eating super army comes at us, I will vote "yes" on the preemptive strike.

You are trying to present the grounds for pre-emptive strikes as rediculous by creating a ludicrous scenario. I did not outline some alien cannibal attack, but rather incidents that actually took place in history.

In the case your talking about luck is the only reason Israel won. If the other side had been competent there would have been fuck all you could have done. An actual competent group would have assembled where they couldn't have been knocked out one at a time.

It's not luck, it was the pre-emptive strike which wiped out the enemy's ability to conduct offensive operations. The enemy may not have been competant, but had we waited for more Arab armies to arrive, and for them to finish organizing their forces, dispositions, and logistics, we might not have made it. Another issue is that Israel could not have been on military alert for more than a few weeks, before its economy got into melt-down. It had to act. Thus, saying all pre-emptive strikes are not legitemate seems, imo, to stem from a mentality of the wrongness of the Iraq war. Sure, the latter was not legitemate since Iraq was not poised to attack it, and the US is probably strong enough and big enough to wait for the enemy to attack it before retaliating, but not every country is the US and in specific cases, it can be the best, or the only option available to a country to survive. Lightning lord can try and present such scenario's in a ludicrous light, but they occured in history.

Of course since said armies where on Israels border that's not really a preemptive strike. Because a preemptive strike is a strike that happens before the threat of the other army attacking happens. IE Russia says it's going to attack Canada and we hit their airfields before they have there aircraft ready. Not when they already have armies massing at are border. That's just a war.

No, it's not, since the Arabs did not attack yet. Pre-emptive as in before they attacked, which is precisely this scenario.

[Errant Bard]

Yes, the war in Iraq was a preemptive strike. And I was the guy in the crowd of people protesting it from the outset. I didn't want either of those wars, I don't want one with North Korea, either. I'm pretty consistent on that.

Mind, I didn't mention it to say you supported it, but to point, perhaps naively, that no matter the country or the population, some nationalistic spin based on some shocking fact of violence is going to make most of the population into wilful, xenophobic aggressors who cannot take the slight criticism about their foreign/military policies.

It's still disgusting, but not unexpected, that such a population would consider cool preemptive strikes on anyone labeled an enemy in their paranoid mind, and if the US example can help us, we can see that many people expand "the enemy" from the terrorists to anyone sharing a passing similarity with them (see: "ground zero mosque")

[Lightning Lord]

You are trying to present the grounds for pre-emptive strikes as rediculous by creating a ludicrous scenario. I did not outline some alien cannibal attack, but rather incidents that actually took place in history.

No, it's not, since the Arabs did not attack yet. Pre-emptive as in before they attacked, which is precisely this scenario.

I presented a scenario to illustrate that "never" is not my stance. I made it ludicrous because preemptive strikes need to have some damn powerful circumstances to be justified.

[TrueMetis]

It's not luck, it was the pre-emptive strike which wiped out the enemy's ability to conduct offensive operations.

Which was only possible because they where stupid about putting forces right on the border before they where ready to attack. IE Israel was lucky.

No, it's not, since the Arabs did not attack yet. Pre-emptive as in before they attacked, which is precisely this scenario.

Apparently we are using different definitions. I would consider these definitions of preemptive strike.

Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent.

Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence.

See the key words there? When there is an army gathering at your border you know they are going to attack. Hell massing an army at someones border is a definite hostile act and should be enough be considered an act of war. While a preemptive strike you don't know but you think so.

To go back to the fight analogy he says he's going to hit me I can't be sure he's actually going to hit me he could be talking out his ass. If I see him wind up to punch me (If you know what to look for you can always see it coming) then I know he's going to hit me the is no belief or anticipation involved.

[Yoadm]

Which was only possible because they where stupid about putting forces right on the border before they where ready to attack. IE Israel was lucky.

Irrelevant. Whether they were tactically deficient in giving Israel an opportunity does not matter. What matters is that there are times in history where striking pre-emptively is far preferable than waiting for an attack to come.

Apparently we are using different definitions. I would consider these definitions of preemptive strike.

Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent.

Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence.

See the key words there? When there is an army gathering at your border you know they are going to attack. Hell massing an army at someones border is a definite hostile act and should be enough be considered an act of war. While a preemptive strike you don't know but you think so.

This is precisely what happened in 1967. The Arab armies did not attack yet, but rather it was imminent/anticipated.

Pre-emptive strike, as you termed it, is a strike preceding an imminant attack. When armies ammas at your borders, then the attack is... imminant, prompting you to "pre-empt" it.

To go back to the fight analogy he says he's going to hit me I can't be sure he's actually going to hit me he could be talking out his ass. If I see him wind up to punch me (If you know what to look for you can always see it coming) then I know he's going to hit me the is no belief or anticipation involved.

Yes, indeed, his punch is imminant, right?

[Samalander]

On the subject of pre-emptive strikes and Israel:

Israel is a tiny tiny country. People around the world are often surprised at how tiny it is (especially in China). We simply do not have the luxury other countries enjoy of waging a prolonged war on our own turf and in these troubling times, it must also be admitted that we cannot sustain a nuclear first strike and survive. This, in turn, makes the IDF's first priority in war to move the engagement into the enemy's territory, and if possible, start the conflict on the enemy's territory. This also makes us very nervous about enemies developing nuclear weapons and saying they will use it on us.

A famous case of Israel not pre-emptively striking when perhaps it should is the Yom Kippur War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Lack_of_an_Israeli_pre-emptive_attack

We paid so dearly for that decision, that even now, 30+ years later, it is heatly debated whenever a segment of protocol is released from cabinet meeting that took place back then.

[Galactus]

It should be noted that Nasser at least probably didn't intend to attack at first, it was simply a political move to put pressure on Israel re: The straits. But the popular surge of support meant he couldn't back down, and the egyptians had to hastily organize some kind of invasion plan (and the israelis attacked in the middle of this process)

The army was originally deployed for something else and he changed his prioritis mid-way, which probably explains a good dea of the incompetence displayed.

[Yoadm]

It should be noted that Nasser at least probably didn't intend to attack at first, it was simply a political move to put pressure on Israel re: The straits. But the popular surge of support meant he couldn't back down, and the egyptians had to hastily organize some kind of invasion plan (and the israelis attacked in the middle of this process)

The army was originally deployed for something else and he changed his prioritis mid-way, which probably explains a good dea of the incompetence displayed.

Indeed, he was all bluster at the start but got carried away in his own rhetoric and the response from the street. Despite his incompetance and the incompetance of his (and other) armies assembling on Israel's borders, had Israel not struck first, then it would have risked anything from a terribly prolonged war up to its own existance.

[The Progressive]

Not precisely. It's a report by a branch of the UN called the UNHRC, whos members decided to initiate an investigation of their own despite Ban Kai Moon's initiative

So? It's still an official UN report, and the hair-splitting is only making the detractors looking more ridiculous. To illustrate, let say hypothetically there has been a huge oil spill in the gulf region, the US president appointed a commission from White House staffers/experts to investigate and report on the spill ......... however, that doesn't mean that the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Energy or the Department of Health and Human Services can't initiate and conduct their own investigation and somehow that would make their investigations less legitimate than the one authorized by the White House.

So back to the UN study, I note that the detractors have utterly failed in their attempts to discredit the source and it seems that reasonable posters aren't buying it. The detractors failed to discredit the judges, the investigators, witnesses' credibility and the methodology of the investigation and isn't able to provide any comparable UN investigation that would match the bizzare "parameters" (and such a term has been stretch beyond any normal understanding of it) that they insisted on and explicitly spelled out.

For what its worth, I don't think that the other UN investigation they are harping about would be any different in methodology. And if anything, any investigation that are bounded by the constraints set upon by Israel will not be as thorough and objective as this UN study. For example, say there has been a case of embezzlement and corruption; and two investigations were conducted on the matter. In one investigation, the accused refused to cooperate when asked to, but fortunately the investigators where able to dug up offshore bank accounts, video recordings of bribery and and witnesses testimonies corroborating bribery taking place with the accused. Then you have the other investigation, which is bound by constraints set by the accused such as the accused insisting on the specific bank accounts which could be examined only, or the names of specific witnesses to be interviewed only, and any other evidences not controlled by the accused will be disregard.

Well, it's rather obvious to anyone possessing common sense which investigation is more reliable and objective.

[Yoadm]

So? It's still an official UN report, and the hair-splitting is only making the detractors looking more ridiculous.

The official report was that created by the secretary general of the UN. The UNHRC report is... a report of a sub-division of the UN. The former was endorsed by all parties who played a part of this incident, the latter was not. Term it however you like.

So back to the UN study, I note that the detractors have utterly failed in their attempts to discredit the source and it seems that reasonable posters aren't buying it.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as calling you reasnoble, and as of now, you have completely failed in debunking or even maturely adressing the points I have made. The UNHRC is proven to be an extremely biased organization. We do not know the investigative parameters they set, only that the result was extremely one-sided. If you think the source is still credible, then kudos to your own bias.

The detractors failed to discredit the judges, the investigators, witnesses' credibility and the methodology of the investigation and isn't able to provide any comparable UN investigation that would match the bizzare "parameters" (and such a term has been stretch beyond any normal understanding of it) that they insisted on and explicitly spelled out.

Just because you do not know the different ways of conducting an investigation and how one treats witness accounts, doesn't mean that your ignorance automatically dumbs down the term. Two investigations dealing with the same issue and the same witnesses can reach completely different conclusions depending on how they deal with the information.

For what its worth, I don't think that the other UN investigation they are harping about would be any different in methodology. And if anything, any investigation that are bounded by the constraints set upon by Israel will not be as thorough and objective as this UN study.

Correction: The UNHRC report, biased or not, was far more constrained since it only had witness accounts of one side (and those, it treated questionably). The latter investigation has far more access to both sides accounts, testimonies and evidence.

For example, say there has been a case of embezzlement and corruption; and two investigations were conducted on the matter. In one investigation, the accused refused to cooperate when asked to, but fortunately the investigators where able to dug up offshore bank accounts, video recordings of bribery and and witnesses testimonies corroborating bribery taking place with the accused.

Correction, in your analogy, they would only have access to specific questionable witness accounts, had no idea what those offshore accounts were, but blindly accepted the accusers version. The investigation would still only accept only one narrative presented in those accounts and ignore the rest. How about an 'all white court in south carolina judging a black man in the 40's' analogy? The black community refuses to take part, the people who appoint the jury are all white supremacists, the jury speaks in closed doors, as it allways does, and the findings, surprise surprise, are very harsh and one-sided.

Then you have the other investigation, which is bound by constraints set by the accused such as the accused insisting on the specific bank accounts which could be examined only, or the names of specific witnesses to be interviewed only, and any other evidences not controlled by the accused will be disregard.

Both investigations have constraints. But while the first was instigated by an extremely biased organization and had access to only one side's narrative, the other's parameters were accepted by both sides (which endorsed the investigation), and it has access to far more information (which, though still limited, at least derives from both sides of the issue). You do the math.

[The Progressive]

On the contrary, the parameters of this UN investigation is quite reasonable and thorough to most people's satisfaction as witnessed by the comments on this thread. It seems that only you and Salamander has problem with it, obviously due to its conclusion. I also note that Israel's refusal to cooperate has been brought up again and again, never mind that the reason Israel's refusal to cooperate is most likely because they can't set constraints on this investigation.

[Yoadm]

On the contrary, the parameters of this UN investigation is quite reasonable

Amazing, since no one knows what they are. Just remember one thing: When organizations or countries initiate an investigation and they have a very clear agenda regarding this investigations result, than rarely if ever do the results not echo the country/organizations agenda.

and thorough to most people's satisfaction as witnessed by the comments on this thread. It seems that only you and Salamander has problem with it, obviously due to its conclusion.

Obviousely due to the conclusion not taking into account half the story, and accepting a biased narrative. But I suppose for you these are petty details. As long as they condemn Israel, they are fair and balanced.

I also note that Israel's refusal to cooperate has been brought up again and again, never mind that the reason Israel's refusal to cooperate is most likely because they can't set constraints on this investigation.

Israel did not even ask to set constraints. Because the HRC initiated it, Israel refused to cooperate with it, and rather sent over its testimonies, witness accounts, footage and evidence to the commision initiated by Ban-Kai-Moon. Evidentely, the Turkish government, who has a very strong and opposite interest in this matter compared to Israel, endorsed the commision as well.

[The Progressive]

Amazing, since no one knows what they are.

It was carefully summarized in the "Methodology" section to everyone but your satisfaction. You seem to insist on an exhaustive multi-volume blueprint containing all investigative memos and interview transcripts as approriate "parameters" that needed to be explicitly spelled out. I have to say that is such a bizzare demand.

I also note that when asked to present any other UN investigation where such "parameters" are presented in such manner, you failed to present any. So yeah, I don't think anybody is taking your detraction here about "parameters" seriously.

[Yoadm]

It was carefully summarized in the "Methodology" section to everyone but your satisfaction.

Everyone being you and ljkeane. The methodology presented dry technical details like the number of witnesses, their nationality, and protections afforded to them. Nothing regarding how the testimonies will be taken, examined, varified, cross-examining information, witness treatment (hostile, partial), etc..

This is why, throughout history when a country or organization creates an investigation and has a vested interest in one specific result, then the investigations result allmost allways echo the parties interest. You seem utterly oblivious to this.

You seem to insist on an exhaustive multi-volume blueprint containing all investigative memos and interview transcripts as approriate "parameters" that needed to be explicitly spelled out.

I never said that. Infact, I pointed out more than once in our discussion that this material is allmost never published. Credibility is measured by who set those parameters, not their specifics (which, as I said before, rarely see the light of day).

I also note that when asked to present any other UN investigation where such "parameters" are presented in such manner, you failed to present any.

I explicitly said that there rarely are any. Read the above, and I adressed that issue to you, and to ljkeane before you even brought it up. Like I said (3-4 times allready), no one expects this stuff to be present in a report. Credibility is judged by who initiates those parameters and the mandate.

[The Progressive]

witness treatment (hostile, partial)

You know, it would be reasonable to presume that hostile witnesses are actually the ones who are refusing to cooperate with the investigation.

Credibility is measured by who set those parameters, not their specifics (which, as I said before, rarely see the light of day).

Credibility is judged by who initiates those parameters and the mandate.

I see that you've backtracked from the nonsense about "parameters" ........... which is progress, I guess, lol.

So now it's credibility .......... I believe that Shryke and a few others asked you previously and which I'll raise again: What evidences are there to challenge the credibility of the 3 judges or the investigators of this investigation?

[Yoadm]

You know, it would be reasonable to presume that hostile witnesses are actually the ones who are refusing to cooperate with the investigation.

A hostile witness is not someone who nesseceraly refuses to cooperate, but rather someone who's testimony is partial or suspected of being untruthfull. How one treats or cross examines such a witness, if one accepts witness accounts as true or questionable shapes a whole investigation. From the results of this investigation, it seems that very questionable accounts were immidiately accepted, despite contrary accounts coming up from the activists themselves, logic dictating otherwise, and photographic evidence pointing to another direction.

I see that you've backtracked from the nonsense about "parameters" ........... which is progress, I guess, lol.

No, I didn't, though I find it interesting you have moved from semi-honest debate to outright trolling. Investigative parameters are critical to how an investigation's result looks like, but they are rarely published in a report. Thus, in order to judge an investigations partiality or impartiality, you look at who initiated the commision and formed their investigative parameters.

So now it's credibility .......... I believe that Shryke and a few others asked you previously and which I'll raise again: What evidences are there to challenge the credibility of the 3 judges or the investigators of this investigation?

And I allready answered: The organization which initiated the report and set its mandate, and the completely partial results which selectively chose to accept or disprove testimonies according to a very one-sided narrative.

[The Progressive]

The organization which initiated the report and set its mandate

So ........... nothing concrete but vague blanket condemnation as usual?

Very well then.

[Yoadm]

So ........... nothing concrete but vague blanket condemnation as usual?

Very well then.

Vague Blanket condemnation? I was more than direct, and very specific. I produced pages and pages outlining the HRC's record in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, sources and all, yet you chose to ignore it. I allso provided more than one example of the investigations results, which accepted specific questionable accounts without evidence to corroberate them, while ignoring contradicting accounts. Again, if you want to move to trolling and misrepresentation of my claims, then you might as well join the UNHRC yourself. You seem more than qualified for it.

[Galactus]

Vague Blanket condemnation? I was more than direct, and very specific. I produced pages and pages outlining the HRC's record in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, sources and all, yet you chose to ignore it. I allso provided more than one example of the investigations results, which accepted specific questionable accounts without evidence to corroberate them, while ignoring contradicting accounts. Again, if you want to move to trolling and misrepresentation of my claims, then you might as well join the UNHRC yourself. You seem more than qualified for it.

But you provided no reason to dismiss this specific report.

[Yoadm]

But you provided no reason to dismiss this specific report.

The HRC's record, the fact that it set the mandate, and the one-sided conclusions of the investigations are the reason.