Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun/Archive 1

message: Out of curiosity, what could Israel really have expected to accomplish? I mean seriously.  Did they really expect to hit only "terrorists."?  If this was sincerely their goal ... that they really thought they could eliminate individual terrorists with surgical precision .. .then fine .. it was an "accident" and not a "massacre."  But what on earth could they possible have that would make them think they could hit only terrorists...that there would be minimum civilian casualities?  Do they have terrorist seeking missiles?  If you know for certain it's going to kill civilians .. and there's only possibilty it might kill a terrorist ... it is definitely a massacre, or what one might call state terrorism.  You perform an action that has at least one guaranteed outcome ... civilians will die.   You want to perform this action.  So therefore, you purposely want to perform a specific action that has the guaranteed results of killing civilians. This is massacre.  18.211.0.105 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What could they have expected to accomplish??

message: Is Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun a NPOV title? That article also has pictures, something this one lacks. --Striver 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have more gory pictures, to show how bloodthirsty those Joos Zionists really are. Striclty for NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you implying? We should have an article about the event, withouth actually describing it? --Striver 12:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have a descriptive article without resorting to copyvio. The images you have uploaded do not even remotely qualify as fair use. Beit Or 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, considering that your argumentation would demand the deletion of _all_ the pictures i linked to, the conclusion is that either is your interpretation wrong, or the problem is on a procedural scale and it would be wrong to single out a single article. Just take a look at :Image:Pentagon precollapse.jpg--Striver 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I have submitted Striver's bad-faith "Merge" POV fork of this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun.
I do this because it is a POV fork, put in in bad faith by an editor whose history I have read and I have determined that I cannot come to assume they acted in good faith in its creation, and because other editors here have pointed out that the images in that article are all copyright violations. RunedChozo 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expressed a complaint regarding the speedy delete closure of that afd to the adming closing the afd. --Striver 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Submitted bad-faith "Merge" page for deletion

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Support: Incident is a euphemism for the shelling of a populated area and the killing of women and children in their sleep. It is borderline offensive. Massacre is the proper word in my opinion but I understand that wikipedia has to be careful with politically charged words. Shelling is slightly better than incident and I support this move.--Burgas00 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the use of "shelling" instead of euphemistic "incident"? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey