RugbyRebels

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

You need to steer away from Moscow Central sanctioned history books. All of Asian Russia is conquered territory, similar to "European" expansion in North America.
Not really comparable to modern Israel, I'll grant you.

More comedy gold from you.

You're just displaying willful ignorance now.
You're either a Moscow shill or an idiot.

Of course, the most obvious answer to the question: "What territories is Russia occupying questionably or otherwise?" is the part of Ukraine known as Crimea. I'm sure you'll be right along in your own time with another incisive comment that avoids discussing the reality. Either that or whatever Moscow Central's latest is.

Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick on Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

In response to your first question, I was comparing its colonial past to North America and Australasia, where the same process occurred, only much earlier, which seemed a relevant point. That's a no-brainer.

West Papua is a valid comparison, but I'm not sure what you're referring to with Russia. Tho what we are discussing here is the possibility of banning Israel not for its ethnic cleansing and routine massacres of Palestinian civilians, but primarily for its apartheid system of government - the very reason South Africa was banned from international sports, including rugby, not so very long ago. The valid point has been made, however, that such a boycott would be virtually meaningless, as rugby is a very minor sport in Israel, and there is no evidence of discrimination within the game itself.

So you don't think there was anything that was the least bit questionable about Russia's recent adventures in Georgia or their annexation of Crimea?

Quite the reverse. Those conflicts were instigated by Georgia and the Ukraine, respectively, both with US backing. The former bombed South Ossetia, causing Russia to intervene, while the CIA helped instigate a military coup in Kiev, replacing the pro-Russian leadership with a corrupt, pro-Western oligarch, leading to a bloody civil war. The Crimeans themselves then voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, and Russia thereby had a valid pretext to secure its long-standing (and extremely vital) naval base on the peninsula.

In fact, I'm curious as to why you selected this example, instead of the much more blatant - and brutal - colonization of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (among others) by America and its allies.

rowan wrote:Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick on Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

In response to your first question, I was comparing its colonial past to North America and Australasia, where the same process occurred, only much earlier, which seemed a relevant point. That's a no-brainer.

West Papua is a valid comparison, but I'm not sure what you're referring to with Russia. Tho what we are discussing here is the possibility of banning Israel not for its ethnic cleansing and routine massacres of Palestinian civilians, but primarily for its apartheid system of government - the very reason South Africa was banned from international sports, including rugby, not so very long ago. The valid point has been made, however, that such a boycott would be virtually meaningless, as rugby is a very minor sport in Israel, and there is no evidence of discrimination within the game itself.

So you don't think there was anything that was the least bit questionable about Russia's recent adventures in Georgia or their annexation of Crimea?

Quite the reverse. Those conflicts were instigated by Georgia and the Ukraine, respectively, both with US backing. The former bombed South Ossetia, causing Russia to intervene, while the CIA helped instigate a military coup in Kiev, replacing the pro-Russian leadership with a corrupt, pro-Western oligarch, leading to a bloody civil war. The Crimeans themselves then voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, and Russia thereby had a valid pretext to secure its long-standing (and extremely vital) naval base on the peninsula.

In fact, I'm curious as to why you selected this example, instead of the much more blatant - and brutal - colonization of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (among others) by America and its allies.

of course, Russia wasn't involved in South Ossetia or Abkhazia prior to the war with Georgia? Both were formally Georgian territory, but that didn't stop Russia from stirring up trouble. Its amazing that Russia is never at fault for the number of wars, or other acts of aggression, that seem to occur routinely along its border. Fine to bash the west for its aggression, but not-Russia?

Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anything the ISraelis have done in the Gaza Strip, yet apparently this is fine, and legal as Assad has asked Putin for help.

Yet everything is the West's fault. Going by the title of this thread, international sporting events would be fairly dull if Russia, China (Tibet anyone) and a host of other countries were excluded from them, for doing much the same that Israel does.

I say fuck Soda Stream.

morepork wrote:I say fuck Soda Stream.

Agreed. For all the false promises to small children everywhere.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: You need to steer away from Moscow Central sanctioned history books. All of Asian Russia is conquered territory, similar to "European" expansion in North America.
Not really comparable to modern Israel, I'll grant you.

More comedy gold from you.

You're just displaying willful ignorance now.
You're either a Moscow shill or an idiot.

Of course, the most obvious answer to the question: "What territories is Russia occupying questionably or otherwise?" is the part of Ukraine known as Crimea. I'm sure you'll be right along in your own time with another incisive comment that avoids discussing the reality. Either that or whatever Moscow Central's latest is.

Crimea is part of Russia. It isn't occupied.

The change occurred due to the violent US coup in Ukraine, by popular choice.

Sandydragon wrote:Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anything the ISraelis have done in the Gaza Strip, yet apparently this is fine, and legal as Assad has asked Putin for help.

Yet everything is the West's fault. Going by the title of this thread, international sporting events would be fairly dull if Russia, China (Tibet anyone) and a host of other countries were excluded from them, for doing much the same that Israel does.

A whole lotta sophistry. Russia has never 'denied and admitted' any such thing. And to compare airstrikes against a heavily armed mercenary army and the Israeli attacks on a captive unarmed population is repellant.

Shame on you.

Crimea is part of Russia in the same way Manchuria was part of Japan prior to WWII.

Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anythin

Firstly, even the Americans have been forced to agree that the Russians did an outstanding job in Syria by actually targetting the terrorists and their supply lines, thereby bringing an end-in-sight to this protracted conflict. Meanwhile the US, by its own admission, has been arming and training the terrorists. In this manner it instigated and perpetuated the conflict, long before the Russians put a stop to it.

Yes, the Ukraine became a proxy war with Russians backing their ethnic kinsmen and the US backing the puppet it had helped install in Kiev. But what were the Americans doing there in the first place? Last time I looked the US was on the other side of the Atlantic, and as far as I recall they had promised Gorbachev they would never enter Eastern Europe.

The South Osettians, ethnically akin to Iranians, did not wish to be part of Georgia after the break-up of the Soviet Union, inevitably there were skirmishes, and then the war criminal Saakashvili decided to bomb South Osettia to rubble, killing and maiming thousands, before the Russians stepped in.

There is no comparison here to the systematic colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, instigated by Zionists from Europe in the previous century by way of massacres, rape and terrorism (ie King David Hotel bombing), and which continues today in the form of Apartheid with a wealthy settler community living alongside a native population living in enforced 3rd World conditions - with a massive wall between them. This is quite aside from the ongoing massacres, summary executions and mass incarceration of minors without due legal process. There is simply nothing in the world today that compares to this, and hasn't been since the demise of Israel's former ally, Apartheid South Africa.

At the moment they are talking of nothing else in Israel.

Indeed: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/spor ... m-1.712047

Can you imagine the banter between the Swiss and Israelis?

Ha. Just scrolled down and saw this:

"Teperson's childhood in South Africa prepared him well for a prominent military career in Israel, to which he immigrated in 1948."

How apposite.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.685347

cashead wrote:Crimea is part of Russia in the same way Manchuria was part of Japan prior to WWII.

Don't be silly.

rowan wrote: the war criminal Saakashvili

And now the little f***er is the governor of a Ukranian oblast.

You couldn't make this shit up.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
More comedy gold from you.

You're just displaying willful ignorance now.
You're either a Moscow shill or an idiot.

Of course, the most obvious answer to the question: "What territories is Russia occupying questionably or otherwise?" is the part of Ukraine known as Crimea. I'm sure you'll be right along in your own time with another incisive comment that avoids discussing the reality. Either that or whatever Moscow Central's latest is.

Crimea is part of Russia. It isn't occupied.

The change occurred due to the violent US coup in Ukraine, by popular choice.

Now that really is comedy gold.

cashead wrote:Crimea is part of Russia in the same way Manchuria was part of Japan prior to WWII.

You're wasting your time. You're trying to argue with the PR department of the Kremlin.

rowan wrote:Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anythin

Firstly, even the Americans have been forced to agree that the Russians did an outstanding job in Syria by actually targetting the terrorists and their supply lines, thereby bringing an end-in-sight to this protracted conflict. Meanwhile the US, by its own admission, has been arming and training the terrorists. In this manner it instigated and perpetuated the conflict, long before the Russians put a stop to it.

Yes, the Ukraine became a proxy war with Russians backing their ethnic kinsmen and the US backing the puppet it had helped install in Kiev. But what were the Americans doing there in the first place? Last time I looked the US was on the other side of the Atlantic, and as far as I recall they had promised Gorbachev they would never enter Eastern Europe.

The South Osettians, ethnically akin to Iranians, did not wish to be part of Georgia after the break-up of the Soviet Union, inevitably there were skirmishes, and then the war criminal Saakashvili decided to bomb South Osettia to rubble, killing and maiming thousands, before the Russians stepped in.

There is no comparison here to the systematic colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, instigated by Zionists from Europe in the previous century by way of massacres, rape and terrorism (ie King David Hotel bombing), and which continues today in the form of Apartheid with a wealthy settler community living alongside a native population living in enforced 3rd World conditions - with a massive wall between them. This is quite aside from the ongoing massacres, summary executions and mass incarceration of minors without due legal process. There is simply nothing in the world today that compares to this, and hasn't been since the demise of Israel's former ally, Apartheid South Africa.

The Russians are ignoring the laws of armed conflict, hence their effectiveness. My point wasn't about whether the Russians were being effective at targeting those rebels who oppose Assad, but whether they were being more brutal than the NATO forces were in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Russians have gone to, or otherwise supported, actions that we never took in those other campaigns, yet this goes without comment by those who usually scream loudest about war crimes.

If you spend time in Eastern Europe, you will find many (the non-ethnic Russians) who are very nervous about future Russian intentions. Pretty understandable following 80 odd years of Soviet rule. Closer alliance with the US, NATO or the EU isn't something which is a one way demand from the west. The Russians are creating discontent amongst the ethnic Russian populations in those border countries, which is conveniently cited by their supporters as justification for acts which violate international law. Yet again, no adverse comment from the usual suspects.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia were semi-autonomous before the war. The Russians provoked the Georgians and then were conveniently on site with overwhelming force to step in and effectively take over those areas. The Russians had peacekeepers in Abkhazia prior to the war, they remained afterwards but refused to support the UN mission. They were no longer peacekeepers but an occupational force. After the Russians vetoed the UNOMIG charter in 2009, as the UN troops withdrew, heavy formations of the Russian military moved in. All of this followed the Russian shooting down of a Georgian UAV over Georgian airspace, a fact proven by the UN investigators and met with the usual distain by the Russians. Interesting the Abkhazian's wanted to be fully independent, yet the Russians didn't want to allow that.

Interesting that you only mention the instances of Jewish terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel, violence from the other side isn't. Also how odd that you fail to mention that both sides have contributed to the current standoff - the Arab side could have helped to secure peace many times but isn't interested. Far better to keep all those Palestinians angry as a useful proxy. Interesting too that many other countries enforce discriminatory policies on parts of their population, yet you don't want to ban these countries from international sport. Ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia for example are excluded from employment, forcing them to move across the border into Georgia proper. This meets the requirements for ethnic cleansing, but its never commented upon. How odd.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anything the ISraelis have done in the Gaza Strip, yet apparently this is fine, and legal as Assad has asked Putin for help.

Yet everything is the West's fault. Going by the title of this thread, international sporting events would be fairly dull if Russia, China (Tibet anyone) and a host of other countries were excluded from them, for doing much the same that Israel does.

A whole lotta sophistry. Russia has never 'denied and admitted' any such thing. And to compare airstrikes against a heavily armed mercenary army and the Israeli attacks on a captive unarmed population is repellant.

Shame on you.

Oh my aching sides. Pure comedy gold. Russians and their Syrian allies have been very indiscriminate in their air attacks (remember you stated it didn't matter as Assad could pretty much do what he wanted against his own population). The Israelis aren't as discriminatory as the RAF would be, but their use of airpower in the Gaza strip was restrained in comparison to what they could have unleashed. And last time I checked, Hamas were criticized by international observers for launching strike against Israel from civilian populated buildings and areas. Perhaps you should look at the international laws concerning the targeting of buildings that are used in such a manner.

The Russians are ignoring the laws of armed conflict,

Yet even the Americans have praised them, while their effectiveness in Syria has been credited with bringing an end-in-sight to a protracted conflict the US claimed would take a decade to end. The US were, of course, fanning the flames at the time they claimed this, by continuing to back the rebels/terrorists, which might help explain why they've been rooted in Afghanistan & Iraq for so long (the Libyan conflict doesn't look like being resolved any time soon either).

If you spend time in Eastern Europe,

Check. Already did. My interpretation of events is not the same as yours, sorry. No need to repeat them.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia were semi-autonomous before the war.

I didn't suggest otherwise. But South Ossetia wanted independence from Georgia. That was the basis of the conflict which led to Georgia bombing South Ossetia to rubble, causing the Russians to step in. Did Russia occupy Georgia for more than a decade, as America has done to Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't think so.


Interesting that you only mention the instances of Jewish terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel,

Yes, we usually only talk about the slaughter of native peoples when we discuss the brutal colonization of the Americas and Australasia as well. Condemning the resistance for desperate acts of retaliation went out with the 20th century, sorry to disappoint you. But the Zionists from Europe did indeed commit massacres and major acts of terrorism against the Palestinian natives, and also against the British who had dared attempt to rein them in just a tad, and many of those war criminals and terrorists went on to become prominent politicians, a number of Israeli prime ministers among them, from Ben-Gurion himself to the monstrous Airel Sharon.

Good to see the Cold War still has a few active bacteria. I work with a few Russians. Great craic.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anythin

Firstly, even the Americans have been forced to agree that the Russians did an outstanding job in Syria by actually targetting the terrorists and their supply lines, thereby bringing an end-in-sight to this protracted conflict. Meanwhile the US, by its own admission, has been arming and training the terrorists. In this manner it instigated and perpetuated the conflict, long before the Russians put a stop to it.

Yes, the Ukraine became a proxy war with Russians backing their ethnic kinsmen and the US backing the puppet it had helped install in Kiev. But what were the Americans doing there in the first place? Last time I looked the US was on the other side of the Atlantic, and as far as I recall they had promised Gorbachev they would never enter Eastern Europe.

The South Osettians, ethnically akin to Iranians, did not wish to be part of Georgia after the break-up of the Soviet Union, inevitably there were skirmishes, and then the war criminal Saakashvili decided to bomb South Osettia to rubble, killing and maiming thousands, before the Russians stepped in.

There is no comparison here to the systematic colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, instigated by Zionists from Europe in the previous century by way of massacres, rape and terrorism (ie King David Hotel bombing), and which continues today in the form of Apartheid with a wealthy settler community living alongside a native population living in enforced 3rd World conditions - with a massive wall between them. This is quite aside from the ongoing massacres, summary executions and mass incarceration of minors without due legal process. There is simply nothing in the world today that compares to this, and hasn't been since the demise of Israel's former ally, Apartheid South Africa.

The Russians are ignoring the laws of armed conflict, hence their effectiveness. My point wasn't about whether the Russians were being effective at targeting those rebels who oppose Assad, but whether they were being more brutal than the NATO forces were in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Russians have gone to, or otherwise supported, actions that we never took in those other campaigns, yet this goes without comment by those who usually scream loudest about war crimes.

If you spend time in Eastern Europe, you will find many (the non-ethnic Russians) who are very nervous about future Russian intentions. Pretty understandable following 80 odd years of Soviet rule. Closer alliance with the US, NATO or the EU isn't something which is a one way demand from the west. The Russians are creating discontent amongst the ethnic Russian populations in those border countries, which is conveniently cited by their supporters as justification for acts which violate international law. Yet again, no adverse comment from the usual suspects.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia were semi-autonomous before the war. The Russians provoked the Georgians and then were conveniently on site with overwhelming force to step in and effectively take over those areas. The Russians had peacekeepers in Abkhazia prior to the war, they remained afterwards but refused to support the UN mission. They were no longer peacekeepers but an occupational force. After the Russians vetoed the UNOMIG charter in 2009, as the UN troops withdrew, heavy formations of the Russian military moved in. All of this followed the Russian shooting down of a Georgian UAV over Georgian airspace, a fact proven by the UN investigators and met with the usual distain by the Russians. Interesting the Abkhazian's wanted to be fully independent, yet the Russians didn't want to allow that.

Interesting that you only mention the instances of Jewish terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel, violence from the other side isn't. Also how odd that you fail to mention that both sides have contributed to the current standoff - the Arab side could have helped to secure peace many times but isn't interested. Far better to keep all those Palestinians angry as a useful proxy. Interesting too that many other countries enforce discriminatory policies on parts of their population, yet you don't want to ban these countries from international sport. Ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia for example are excluded from employment, forcing them to move across the border into Georgia proper. This meets the requirements for ethnic cleansing, but its never commented upon. How odd.

How odd that you dutifully propagate the official narratives (aka lies) and expect to be taken seriously.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course, the argument that Russia was just responding to Gerogian aggression conveniently ignores:
The shooting down of Georgian UAVs by a Russian aircraft prior to the war.
The fact that Russian peacekeepers were unable to prevent routine attacks on Georgian troops by South Ossetian Militiamen.
The speed that Russia was able to concentrate significant numbers of troops and cyber attacks on Georgia. Russia has never been that quick to respond.

Then in the Ukraine we have the fact of Russian servicemen fighting undercover in Crimea and Ukraine. Initially denied by the Kremlin and then admitted.

AS for brutality, Russian air attacks in Syria have by far outclassed anything the ISraelis have done in the Gaza Strip, yet apparently this is fine, and legal as Assad has asked Putin for help.

Yet everything is the West's fault. Going by the title of this thread, international sporting events would be fairly dull if Russia, China (Tibet anyone) and a host of other countries were excluded from them, for doing much the same that Israel does.

A whole lotta sophistry. Russia has never 'denied and admitted' any such thing. And to compare airstrikes against a heavily armed mercenary army and the Israeli attacks on a captive unarmed population is repellant.

Shame on you.

Oh my aching sides. Pure comedy gold. Russians and their Syrian allies have been very indiscriminate in their air attacks (remember you stated it didn't matter as Assad could pretty much do what he wanted against his own population). The Israelis aren't as discriminatory as the RAF would be, but their use of airpower in the Gaza strip was restrained in comparison to what they could have unleashed. And last time I checked, Hamas were criticized by international observers for launching strike against Israel from civilian populated buildings and areas. Perhaps you should look at the international laws concerning the targeting of buildings that are used in such a manner.

I said no such thing you absurd fantasist.

Just as the whole world predicted while protesting adamantly against it, Bush & Blair's illegal invasion of Iraq has led to approximately one million deaths, millions more wounded, traumatized, dispossessed and bereaved, widespread rape and torture, and the destruction of a nation with no end in sight - with terrorist strikes continuing almost daily after 12 years of brutal conflict. It has also contributed to the creation of ISIS, the Syrian civil war, and a massive refugee tidal wave which has led to countless more deaths at sea. No problem for the West, of course. But Russia goes in and smashes ISIS, destroying its supply lines along the way, and all the West wants to talk about are the unavoidable civilian casualties. Meanwhile in Kunduz . . .

Hamas were criticized by international observers for launching strike against Israel from civilian populated buildings and areas.

About Hamas:

- they were founded in response to decades of Israeli state terrorism
- they have responded to the language of violence with violence
- violent methods against an illegal occupation are forms of resistance
- they were also founded due to the impotence of Fatah
- their foundation was encouraged by Israel to counter the PLO
- Israel refused to negotiate peace with the PLO even when Arafat offered them such generous terms his own people were furious
- Israel state terrorism equates to ethnic cleansing
- Hamas is a political organization
- Hamas is the elected choice of its people
- Hamas' terms for a long-standing ceasefire are more than reasonable
- Hamas controls the Gazan tunnels and pays the wages of thousands of Palestinians
- they killed more soldiers in the 2014 conflict than civilians (3) and no children
- Israel killed mostly civilians (approx. 2000), including several hundred children
- Claims Hamas uses human shields have been dismissed by international journalists and aid workers in Gaza
- International journalists and aid workers claim it is Israel which uses human shields
- Claims Hamas stores weapons in hospitals, schools, etc, have been dismissed by international journalists and aid workers
- Israel's military HQ is in the middle of Tel Aviv. Does that make the people of Tel Aviv 'human shields?'
- Hamas has become the convenient excuse for Israel to justify its illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, colonization & Apartheid programmes, just as the Apartheid regime of SA pointed the finger at the ANC and the British in Kenya blamed the Mau Mau uprising.

As Chomsky stated, using military jets and navy vessels to bomb a civilian population which has no military jets or navy vessels is not a war, it's murder. Indeed, it is no more a war than the extermination of the Native Americans. Israel kills on average one child every 3 days, 1500 since 2000.

EU report states Georgia started 2008 war with Russia
Georgian attack unjustifiable under international law
By Niall Green
2 October 2009
When is military aggression not military aggression? For the powers that be in Washington and their media lackeys, the foreign policy interests of US imperialism dictate the answer. Hence, in the August 2008 war between US-ally Georgia and Russia, the former was portrayed as the helpless victim and the latter the aggressive bully.
Following 10 months of investigation ordered by the European Union (EU) into the war, a report has found “unequivocal” proof that Georgia was the aggressor.
The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia issued a report September 30 that contains more than a thousand pages of evidence. The Council of the EU established the mission in order to verify conflicting claims of responsibility for the war. The inquiry was led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, who stated that “None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack” are valid.
“In particular, there was no massive Russian military invasion under way, which had to be stopped by Georgian military forces,” Tagliavini added.
“The shelling of Tskhinvali [the capital of South Ossetia, the breakaway Georgian province in which Russian troops have been stationed since the early 1990s] by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia,” the report states.
“There is the question of whether the force by Georgia during the night of 7/8 August was justifiable under international law. It was not…it is not possible to accept that the shelling of Tskhinvali with Grad multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery would satisfy the requirements of having been necessary and proportionate,” the investigators found.
Scores of civilians were killed in the initial bombardment of Tskhinvali, and others were killed or injured following the invasion of the city by 1,500 Georgian troops. The BBC and Human Rights Watch found evidence of civilians being deliberately targeted by Georgian forces, including indiscriminate firing into basements being used as shelters. The EU report states that Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia “in the initial phase of the conflict” were unjustified.
The findings directly refute claims made not only by the Georgia government of President Mikheil Saakashvili, but also by its backers in Washington and the US media.

More ..... https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/10/geor-o02.html