Another Stupid Israel Thread [Archive]

Moogs

10-21-2003, 09:15 AM

No State-sponsored terrorism to see here folks, move along now... this was an official military action. Two wrongs making a right and all that.

Israeli warplanes and helicopter gunships struck Gaza five times Monday, killing at least 11 people and wounding more than 90, Palestinian hospital authorities said, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon affirmed Israel's threat to remove Yasir Arafat.

...maybe if you assholes could miraculously control your unguided rockets (or use more precise munitions like a rifle bullet??) to [target those truly responsible for arranging and recruiting the suicide bombers], I wouldn't care so much. But I keep seeing all these civilians killed and maimed, so I have to wonder... DO YOU CARE, Sharon? Maybe you shouldn't attack civilian areas unless a sniper is involved, hence hitting only the person(s) being targeted? I'm quite sure your military is imminently capable of this, so why the unguided / semi-guided Cobra rockets from 3000 feet?

Because you don't care; it's a revenge killing against civilians as much as it is an anti-terrorist tactic. And therein lies the problem. The Israeli government is no better than the terrorist groups they claim to fight.

Luca

10-21-2003, 09:21 AM

Yeah, we should get rid of Ariel Sharon. Both his first and last names are women's names too. What's with that? Maybe he's insecure about his sexuality so he has to prove that he's a "real man" by killing some civilians every so often.

Hey, you asked for a "stupid" Israel thread, Moogs; you got it!

:D

Moogs

10-21-2003, 09:26 AM

There have been so many of them it can't help but be kind of stupid at this point. I know the US doesn't have pure hands (free of civlian blood) either, but the wrecklessness with which the Israeli military carries out their strikes is disgusting.

They claim to be the true victim, the more civilized state. Fu*king act like it. Israel is known to have very capable covert military squads. Grab your friggin sniper rifles, climb onto some rooftops and take your pot shots at the leaders of Hamas and whatever government officials you claim are responsible. Leave the damn non-combatants out of it.

Of course, someone will come in and say "Well how do you know who the combatants are? They are justified in taking their best guess at the latest terrorist hide-out and firing away from above. For all we know that 12 year old boy and 20 year old woman were teh next bus bombers."

Which of course makes my point. They don't care if they hit civilians. To the Sharon government, all Palestinians are terrorists in waiting.

Uncle.

Luca

10-21-2003, 09:48 AM

Yes, I definitely agree there Moogs. As you said, the US isn't the purest country but at least we make an effort to use precision guided weapons to avoid civilians. Mistakes are made, and some of these weapons are so big and powerful that they end up hitting civilian targets even if they're right on target. But at least we're not using unguided weapons indiscriminately in areas where there are lots of innocent people.

Perhaps if Sharon wants to be rid of terrorism, he should stop with the terrorism himself. Attacking innocent Palestinians merely furthers the causes of Hezbollah and Hamas, probably more than killing only members of those organizations. It gives them a strong rallying point, a reason to continue fighting. What does Sharon honestly hope to achieve by doing this sort of strike? If he really wanted to commit genocide on the Palestinians, I'm sure he could really flex his military might and just wipe out tons of them, but what he's doing now maximizes the amount of combat - it keeps the war going at a steady rate, but it's slow enough to prevent it from ending. Perhaps Sharon needs to keep the war going to maintain his popularity. He can always maintain the hardline position on Palestinians and point the finger at anyone who opposes him.

Hassan i Sabbah

10-21-2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Moogs

They claim to be the true victim, the more civilized state. Fu*king act like it.

BAM.

Powerdoc

10-21-2003, 10:36 AM

I am waiting desesperatly a good new from this part of the world.
I am not anymore intererested by discussing about the subject, unless some majors changes happens. It could start by a change of the head of governement, and even with this, i am not sure it will be better. :(

Jukebox Hero

10-21-2003, 10:58 AM

Whats kind of sad is that, you know for damn sure, Sharon would round up the Palistinians and kill them in concentration camps if he could.

tonton

10-21-2003, 12:02 PM

True.

Outsider

10-21-2003, 12:16 PM

Oh yeah so true. :rolleyes:

sammi jo

10-21-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Outsider
Oh yeah so true. :rolleyes:

16-18 September, 1982.

Alex London

10-21-2003, 02:09 PM

Sabrah and Shatila. Still shocking, disgusting and inhuman. How anyone could vote for Sharon is totally beyond me, Israel please , please, kick him out asap.

Scott

10-21-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Moogs
No State-sponsored terrorism to see here folks, move along now... this was an official military action. Two wrongs making a right and all that.
Israeli warplanes and helicopter gunships struck Gaza five times Monday, killing at least 11 people and wounding more than 90, Palestinian hospital authorities said, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon affirmed Israel's threat to remove Yasir Arafat.

...maybe if you assholes could miraculously control your unguided rockets (or use more precise munitions like a rifle bullet??) to [target those truly responsible for arranging and recruiting the suicide bombers], I wouldn't care so much. But I keep seeing all these civilians killed and maimed, so I have to wonder... DO YOU CARE, Sharon? Maybe you shouldn't attack civilian areas unless a sniper is involved, hence hitting only the person(s) being targeted? I'm quite sure your military is imminently capable of this, so why the unguided / semi-guided Cobra rockets from 3000 feet?

Because you don't care; it's a revenge killing against civilians as much as it is an anti-terrorist tactic. And therein lies the problem. The Israeli government is no better than the terrorist groups they claim to fight.

So in this situation you accept uncritically the statements of "Palestinian hospital authorities". Can they provide real proof or is this another hoax? Are they even "hospital authorities"? Who are these people? Should we condemn the jews ooops I mean "Israel" on the statements on unnamed people?

Get your head on right.

bunge

10-21-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Scott
So in this situation you accept uncritically the statements of "Palestinian hospital authorities". Can they provide real proof or is this another hoax? Are they even "hospital authorities"? Who are these people? Should we condemn the jews ooops I mean "Israel" on the statements on unnamed people?

Get your head on right.

Have any Jews oops I mean "Israelis" ever been blown up at all? I mean, have you seen it happen? And do you have proof that an animal oops I mean a "Palestinian" was responsible for the explosion?

Scott

10-21-2003, 08:36 PM

Maybe we can focus on the current topic?

bunge

10-21-2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Maybe we can focus on the current topic?

You brought up the subject of the reliability of the media in this conflict. I'm just pointing out how stupid your backtracking is.

Scott

10-21-2003, 09:50 PM

Maybe we can leave that to another thread too?

Back on topic. News report with quote from unnamed source. This is the basis to demonize Israel?

Scott

10-21-2003, 11:02 PM

At least this thread has a correct title.

Tulkas

10-21-2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by bunge
Have any Jews oops I mean "Israelis" ever been blown up at all? I mean, have you seen it happen? And do you have proof that an animal oops I mean a "Palestinian" was responsible for the explosion?
Scott's question was valid. The PA hospitals are not going to be the most unbiased source for casualty reports. If you want to take one side, look at the other as well.

1)The IDF released a video showing that no crowd was near the car when it was hit. The crowd gathered minuted later, too late to be hit by shrapnel.
2)Of the dead, the IDF say it confirms 7 were Hamas, including a suicide bomber that they were chasing. The two missles were precise enough that both hit the car that was targetted.
3)The missles used were intentionally not powerful enough for shrapnel to penetrate concrete.
"so without any crowds on the street when the second missile struck, and with the missiles not strong enough to damage houses lining the road, the Palestinians must be fabricating the stories of mass casualties."

So, if you listen only to the palestinian side, with an obvious bias, then the Israeli's are asshole who targetted maybe a single militant and killed and wounded dozens, with no regard for civilian safety. If you listen to the Israeli side, they took precautions like highly accurate, very low yield munitions. Of course the IDF side has proof that the Palestinian side is lying about the missle being fired into a crowed street, so I guess we must assume the rest of the Palestinian story is true.

bunge

10-22-2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
Scott's question was valid. The PA hospitals are not going to be the most unbiased source for casualty reports. If you want to take one side, look at the other as well.

Look at both sides, good. Then why weren't you here earlier asking Scott to do this?

alcimedes

10-22-2003, 01:18 AM

http://rezone.homestead.com/files/icons/violent.gif

sammi jo

10-22-2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by alcimedes
http://rezone.homestead.com/files/icons/violent.gif

:no:

EMGeneratr

10-22-2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Whats kind of sad is that, you know for damn sure, Sharon would round up the Palistinians and kill them in concentration camps if he could.

Yes, just as quickly as Georgie boy would round up all nonchristians and sell them for slave labor.

EMGeneratr

10-22-2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by bunge
Have any Jews oops I mean "Israelis" ever been blown up at all? I mean, have you seen it happen? And do you have proof that an animal oops I mean a "Palestinian" was responsible for the explosion?

I am amazed that a so called civilized human being could so blindly look at this situation.

Rueters- The attacks followed an ambush by gunmen in which three Israeli soldiers were killed in the West Bank and the launch of eight makeshift rockets from Gaza into Israel on Sunday.

AFter which they ran and hid among a crowded city. If they want to call this a war and openly target women and children then honestly what do they expect? They use their own people as shields and hide behind their children. Yet when they get hurt, the same people bombing school buses are crying foul. Grow up. The only people benefitting from this are the "arab leaders" who use this for scapegoat purposes and keep themselves in power.

You will notice that every one of these attacks come in retalliation. If they wanted peace they should have kept their cease fire agreement years ago. That was the closest the region go to having peace. But this isn;t about peace. It's about genocide. If they wanted peace they'd just stop shooting. But no, that's not enough. they want to kill the jews off. Even if it means their own extinction.

I feel bad for the palestinians. They've become nothing but pawns for the other arab countries who have nothing better to do than perpetuate hate.

10-22-2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
http://rezone.homestead.com/files/icons/violent.gif:no:
All stupid smileys should be shot.

Smircle

10-22-2003, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Moogs
I'm quite sure your military is imminently capable of this, so why the unguided / semi-guided Cobra rockets from 3000 feet?

You know, them Hamas leaders are the real problem. Sneaky arabs living in close vincinity to civilian targets instead somewhere in the desert where you easily can single them out.
You always have to look for a scapegoat, you cannot blame the perpetrator of state terrorism if he is one of your allies.

Israel is not to blame. They have been victims once, their actions are justified forever.

New

10-22-2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by EMGeneratr
[BAfter which they ran and hid among a crowded city. If they want to call this a war and openly target women and children then honestly what do they expect? They use their own people as shields and hide behind their children. Yet when they get hurt, the same people bombing school buses are crying foul./B]

I don't think it's the terrorists that are crying foul. Its the world community. The UN and Human Rights organizations. Some of the people on these boards. Not the terrorists.

EMGeneratr

10-22-2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Smircle
You always have to look for a scapegoat, you cannot blame the perpetrator of state terrorism if he is one of your allies.

Israel is not to blame. They have been victims once, their actions are justified forever. [/B]

Especially if they were attacked first and only retaliated. Don't get mad because, unlike the US they attack the people who attacked them and not some random target.

What is the difference between what the US did in Iraq and what Isreal does now?

EMGeneratr

10-22-2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by New
I don't think it's the terrorists that are crying foul. Its the world community. The UN and Human Rights organizations. Some of the people on these boards. Not the terrorists.
Then perhaps the people complaining should spend some time on both sides of the fence there and stopmletting their personal and very uninformed opinions get in the way.

Zarathustra

10-22-2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by EMGeneratr
The attacks followed an ambush by gunmen in which three Israeli soldiers were killed... AFter which they ran and hid among a crowded city

You'll notice from your own post that (if this is a war), the Palestinians attacked a legitimate target: soldiers from opposing force.

Whether they are considered to be fighting in a legitimate conflict or not does not absolve Israel from any responsibility to behave in a civilised manner. If you lose the gunmen amongst the crowd...that's what you've done.. lost them. There is no excuse for bombing and killing in the general area in the hope that you'll get those responsible.

Whilst there are constant reports in the media that Palestinian children and 'civilians' are maimed and killed, I don't know if that happened in this case. I doubt I'll ever get the kind of proof that Scott requires, but if the argument is that Israel never did it, people should make that argument not make excuses for why it would be acceptable if they did.

Can you imagine the same response in Spain against ETA or in Northern Ireland against PIRA? I don't imagine there would be too many people offering their support.

New

10-22-2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by EMGeneratr
Especially if they were attacked first and only retaliated. Don't get mad because, unlike the US they attack the people who attacked them and not some random target.

What is the difference between what the US did in Iraq and what Isreal does now?

Who the hell are you to tell who did what first? There are retalitions on retalitations all the time. Both sides have in the past been the first to break periods of calm.

Statistically, Palestinian attacks are far more accurate in targeting legitimat millitary targets than the israeli attacks. Palestinian attacks have something like a 1/3 millitary/civilian ratio, while israel is close to 1 in 18 millitants to civilians.

But the main difference is that the attacks from israel are State condoned. By an elected government. while the attacks from the palestinian side are (atleast partially) comitted by uncontrolled rouge groups.

And who are you to call people uninformed? Crawl back under your your rock, or discuss the issue in a propper manner.

Hassan i Sabbah

10-22-2003, 07:17 AM

An interjection: why shouldn't we speak of "Israel" and "the Jews" as if they were interchangeable now?

"Palestinian" and "Arab" are interchangeable. Israel is a Jewish state.

That's why Israel's immigration laws favour Jewish people. That's why the right of return for Arab expulsees is anathema - it would mean the end of the Jewish majority. That's why every single settler from this non-racial Middle Eastern democracy is Jewish. There ain't no Arab Israeli settlers.

So, "Jewish" is an ethnicity, a religion and a culture. Immanuel Goldstein's proved that on this very forum. Israel is the country with the Star of David, the symbol of Judaism, on its flag. Israel is the Jewish state. When we talk about the actions of Israel, we're not talking about the actions of Jewish people in London or New York any more than when we talk about the actions of the suicide bombers we're not talking about Arabs in England or London.

Let's drop the quotes, eh? If you don't like people talking about "the Jews" when they talk about Israel, try and pressure "the Jews" to change so that "the Jews" is a by-word for restraint, generousity and forgiveness rather than bigotry, racism and violence.

The Israeli army is as bad as Hamas. Sharon is as bad as Arafat. Deal with it.

The General

10-22-2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Zarathustra
You'll notice from your own post that (if this is a war), the Palestinians attacked a legitimate target: soldiers from opposing force.

I notice that in quoting him, you didnt quote the other part about them launching rockets into israel.. and those werent aimed at military targets they were launched randomly. the majority of the time the palestinians DON'T go after military targets.. why is that... ?

Scott

10-22-2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
An interjection: why shouldn't we speak of "Israel" and "the Jews" as if they were interchangeable now?

"Palestinian" and "Arab" are interchangeable. Israel is a Jewish state.

That's why Israel's immigration laws favour Jewish people. That's why the right of return for Arab expulsees is anathema - it would mean the end of the Jewish majority. That's why every single settler from this non-racial Middle Eastern democracy is Jewish. There ain't no Arab Israeli settlers.

So, "Jewish" is an ethnicity, a religion and a culture. Immanuel Goldstein's proved that on this very forum. Israel is the country with the Star of David, the symbol of Judaism, on its flag. Israel is the Jewish state. When we talk about the actions of Israel, we're not talking about the actions of Jewish people in London or New York any more than when we talk about the actions of the suicide bombers we're not talking about Arabs in England or London.

Let's drop the quotes, eh? If you don't like people talking about "the Jews" when they talk about Israel, try and pressure "the Jews" to change so that "the Jews" is a by-word for restraint, generousity and forgiveness rather than bigotry, racism and violence.

I'm glad you're owning up to the anti-Semitism people display in this situation. The arab muslims hate Israel not because of land or ocupation but because they are Jews. The liberal/left have fallen into a form intellectualized anti-semitism based on their hatred of Israel.

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The Israeli army is as bad as Hamas. Sharon is as bad as Arafat. Deal with it.

Um no. Arafat is a terrorist Sharon is not. The PA is a terrorist dictatorship and Israel is a democracy fighting for existence. If the difference were more clear to more people this would have been solved years ago.

New

10-22-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Arafat is a terrorist Sharon is not. The PA is a terrorist dictatorship and Israel is a democracy fighting for existence. If the difference were more clear to more people this would have been solved years ago.
Actually, the PA is democratically elected.

In what way does Arafat qualify as a terrorist, and Sharon not?

Scott

10-22-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by New
Actually, the PA is democratically elected.

:lol:

Originally posted by New
In what way does Arafat qualify as a terrorist, and Sharon not?

Because Arafat uses/ed terrorism and Sharon doesn't.

The General

10-22-2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by New
Actually, the PA is democratically elected.

In what way does Arafat qualify as a terrorist, and Sharon not?

The PLO is considered a terrorist organization isnt it?
isnt Hamas? who is in charge of those groups??

ARAFAT(also known as Mr Roper)

New

10-22-2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by The General
I notice that in quoting him, you didnt quote the other part about them launching rockets into israel.. and those werent aimed at military targets they were launched randomly. the majority of the time the palestinians DON'T go after military targets.. why is that... ?

This is untrue. Only a fraction of Palestinian militans target civilians. Most palestinian attacks are directed against israeli millitary in the occupied territories.

And BTW, up to now, nobody have been killed by the rockets fired into isreal. They are really not a significant factor.

The General

10-22-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by New
This is untrue. Only a fraction of Palestinian militans target civilians. Most palestinian attacks are directed against israeli millitary in the occupied territories.

And BTW, up to now, nobody have been killed by the rockets fired into isreal. They are really not a significant factor.

Umm, so blowing up buses, and malls, and restaraunts, I guess they are military malls, military busses(with old ladies on em) and military restaraunts? and if someone launched a missile into my property, if they hurt anyone or not, that would be more of luck, and they would get their ass beaten for it.

New

10-22-2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by The General
The PLO is considered a terrorist organization isnt it?
isnt Hamas? who is in charge of those groups??

ARAFAT(also known as Mr Roper)

No, um, WRONG...

The PLO does not exsist as such anymore. And they were recognized by the UN as the legal representative of the palestinians.

Arafat is a secular leader, Hamas is a religious organisation. Controlled på Sheik Yassin. Not one of Arafats favourite men.

The General

10-22-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by New
No, um, WRONG...

The PLO does not exsist as such anymore. And they were recognized by the UN as the legal representative of the palestinians.

Arafat is a secular leader, Hamas is a religious organisation. Controlled på Sheik Yassin. Not one of Arafats favourite men.

I notice how you word many of your things... like to twist em ay.. as in ANYMORE, so it was, thus he was a terrorist leader than, that is a difference..(I can play word games to ya know)

New

10-22-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by The General
Umm, so blowing up buses, and malls, and restaraunts, I guess they are military malls, military busses(with old ladies on em) and military restaraunts? and if someone launched a missile into my property, if they hurt anyone or not, that would be more of luck, and they would get their ass beaten for it.

My point was that the majority of the attacks are directed against milltary targets. you just don't read about it in the media. And when you do, they are often portrayed as attacks against civilians. Like the "massacre" in Hebron last November when 12 armed men, mostly soldiers, where killed in an ambush.

New

10-22-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by The General
I notice how you word many of your things... like to twist em ay.. as in ANYMORE, so it was, thus he was a terrorist leader than, that is a difference..(I can play word games to ya know)

I never said he was never involved in terrorist attacks in the past. He is no saint. Neither is Sharon. His past is bloody and he has been involved several times in incidents that break international law. Look it up.

Jukebox Hero

10-22-2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by EMGeneratr
Yes, just as quickly as Georgie boy would round up all nonchristians and sell them for slave labor.

Hopefully there would be enough decent people (Christian and non christian) in the USA to stop something like that from ever happening. But the more I interact with people the more I wonder.

Jukebox Hero

10-22-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Um no. Arafat is a terrorist Sharon is not. The PA is a terrorist dictatorship and Israel is a democracy fighting for existence. If the difference were more clear to more people this would have been solved years ago.

The only difference between a terrorist and Sharon is that Sharon happens to be in charge of a government with the backing of other nations...

Hassan i Sabbah

10-22-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Scott
I'm glad you're owning up to the anti-Semitism people display in this situation.

Please go through my post to find exactly where I'm guilty of anti-semitism. Please then quote that sentence and say "You are guilty of anti-semitism here because..." and give your reasons.

Else jerk your knee elsewhere, you racist twat.

:)

Originally posted by Scott

Um no. Arafat is a terrorist Sharon is not. The PA is a terrorist dictatorship and Israel is a democracy fighting for existence.

Um no. Sharon and Hamas both have equally objectionable political motivations. Israel has a powerful, well-armed army and money to train its conscripted soldiers, the Palestinian resistance has suicide bombers. If the Palestinians had a huge army, tanks and missiles I'm sure they'd duke it out fair and square. :) But they don't. So they resort to the waistcoats and the false earlocks. :)

Attacking and killing civilians is equally objectionable whether it's Jewish people or Arabs who are killed.

sammi jo

10-22-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Because Arafat uses/ed terrorism and Sharon doesn't. [/B]

Scott:
Perhaps the reason you post such trash like this is because you have a pathological and irrational hatred of Arabs/Muslims, just like Sharon does. Similarly, the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc have an irrational and pathological hatred for the Jews. You take one side, because your home country's leaders support one side, and it's media shows bias. Similarly in the muslim world people kneejerk against America and Israel on account of the positions of its leaders, and the bias of its media (such as al Jazeera).

Why are you so blinded to the indisputable fact that Israel are using methods against Palestinian (civilians) which only qualify as state sponsored terrorism, as opposed to legitimate military action? Maybe it's got something to do with your inability to acknowledge that the Bush team, as well as some close associates and allies are just as hooked up with international terror and organized crime as any other group on the planet.

Scott

10-22-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Please go through my post to find exactly where I'm guilty of anti-semitism. Please then quote that sentence and say "You are guilty of anti-semitism here because..." and give your reasons.

Else jerk your knee elsewhere, you racist twat.

:)

Maybe you could find exactly where I said you were guilty of being anti-Semitic? Please then quote that sentence and say "This is where you accused me of being anti-Semitic" and give your response.

Else you're an illiterate asshole, you stupid twat.

bunge

10-23-2003, 01:53 AM

People, don't feed the troll.

EMGeneratr

10-23-2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Zarathustra
[B]You'll notice from your own post that (if this is a war), the Palestinians attacked a legitimate target: soldiers from opposing force.

Whether they are considered to be fighting in a legitimate conflict or not does not absolve Israel from any responsibility to behave in a civilised manner. If you lose the gunmen amongst the crowd...that's what you've done.. lost them. There is no excuse for bombing and killing in the general area in the hope that you'll get those responsible.
It is known that their 'bases' are populated houses in poulated areas. they hide behind their own friends and family while they plot and wage war. So, by their own targeting of Isreali civilians, they make the claim that there are no innocents in this battle, then they need to live with the consequences of their own statements.

Let me explain again that KILLING IS WRONG. Every religion states in one form or another "DO NOT KILL." Islam does, so does Judaism and Christianity. Even athiests with the slightest bit of common sense will agree "KILLING IS BAD." I will not justify any killing for any reason. However, you cannot condem one side of this argument without condeming the other as well.

I cannot make a case for the morality of slaughtering innocent women and children. However, I will not sit back and let the uninformed make these ridiculous and baseless statements.

bunge

10-23-2003, 10:49 AM

Smircle

10-23-2003, 11:48 AM

10-23-2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by bunge
This is just insane. You're simply saying that it's OK for Israel to target civilians.
No, if you read carefully that isn't what he is saying. That is simply what you want him to say so you can have something to be outraged over. Nothing more. Nothing less.

bunge

10-23-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by BR
No, if you read carefully that isn't what he is saying. That is simply what you want him to say so you can have something to be outraged over. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Wrong again BR. You're pretty good at that.

They must live with the consequences of their own statements. Must the Israelis live with the consequences of their own actions? Or to the statements and actions not actually correlate to the response?

kneelbeforezod

10-23-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by EMGeneratr
It is known that their 'bases' are populated houses in poulated areas. they hide behind their own friends and family while they plot and wage war. So, by their own targeting of Isreali civilians, they make the claim that there are no innocents in this battle, then they need to live with the consequences of their own statements.
The fact that the IDF targets innocent Palestinian civilians as retribution for acts of terrorism is no more acceptable than the fact that Palestinian terrorists target innocent Israeli civilians. The deliberate and calculated murdering of civilians for politial ends is equally disgusting be it perpetrated by an Israeli soldier/terrorist or a Palestinian freedom-fighter/terrorist.

10-23-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by bunge
Wrong again BR. You're pretty good at that.

They must live with the consequences of their own statements. Must the Israelis live with the consequences of their own actions? Or to the statements and actions not actually correlate to the response?
It means that Israel is wrong for stooping to their level but the Palestinians don't garner any special sympathy whenever they bitch and moan about civilians dying.

All of these deaths are easily avoidable tragedies. You can't separate that from the hypocrisy of many of these militant groups.

kneelbeforezod

10-23-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by BR
It means that Israel is wrong for stooping to their level but the Palestinians don't garner any special sympathy whenever they bitch and moan about civilians dying.
So Israel shouldn't get any special sympathy when young children are blown to pieces?

10-23-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
So Israel shouldn't get any special sympathy when young children are blown to pieces?
Not anything above and beyond the normal sympathy given to the victims of such events.

Smircle

10-23-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
So Israel shouldn't get any special sympathy when young children are blown to pieces? Israeli army says it likely killed Palestinian boy (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/03/mideast.boy.reut/)

Palestinian boy shot dead (http://middleeastinfo.org/article3090.html)

Palestinian boy shot dead (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1292055.stm)

Three different killings by israeli soldiers. Extra sympathy? For what?

It's both sides that have to stop.

Hassan i Sabbah

10-23-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Maybe you could find exactly where I said you were guilty of being anti-Semitic? Please then quote that sentence and say "This is where you accused me of being anti-Semitic" and give your response. [/B]

Happily.

Originally posted by Scott
I'm glad you're owning up to the anti-Semitism people display in this situation.

There. (I refer to the bit where you call me 'anti-semitic'. :) )

kneelbeforezod

10-23-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Smircle
Extra sympathy? For what?

It's both sides that have to stop.

Uh...that was kind of my point. Or rather, I was attempting to express that it is hypocritical of both the IDF and the Palestinian terrorist groups to decry the murder of children and civilians by the other.

Both the Israelis and Palestinians are deserving of our sympathy. The culpability of both sides does not lessen the tragedy of deaths on either side.