Imagine it: the world's attention focused on decades worth of documents and communications intercepts linking Arafat to numerous and horrific acts of murder. It would be interesting, to say the least, to hear Jacques Chirac or the self-styled human rights community explain why Milosevic deserves The Hague and Arafat their adulation.
Do they kill troops? Yes. Do they also delibrately target civilians? Yes.
If this is the threshold, then Israel fails. They've admitted to killing civilians. They originally claimed to be using rubber bullets against crowds of civilians and later admitted that they used live ammunition.
Are you willing to condemn them as harshly as you do the Palestinians? If not you're a racist ****. Israel has admitted to killing civilians, but you don't give a ****.
Israel does not do this. That's the distinction. They only target those who they believe to be terrorists. They screw up and sometimes there is collateral damage. They even go after the families of terrorists sometimes. That is simply not the same as attacking those who are known....ABSOLUTELY KNOWN to be innocent in the hopes the carnage effects political change.
Sammi jo, for example, says she isn't on either side. That's the whole point. To not choose sides is to tacitly condone terrorist acts. [/B]
B.S,, SDW. Do you believe that Israel is *always* in the right? Or are you scared of being seen as anti-Semitic? Or perhaps you are an Islamophobe? Where have you been living? Planet Fox?
Take the partial terrorism record of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli P.M. himself:
August 1953: massacre at El Bureig near Gaza: 50 civilians dead
October 1953: massacre at Qibya, Jordan: at least 69 civilians, (about 45 women and children) murdered
October 1953: villages of Budrus and Shuqba attacked, unknown but heavy casualty count.
1956 Qalqilya, West Bank: 90 civilians murdered by deathsquad commanded by Ariel Sharon.
August 1971, Beach camp, Gaza: 2000 Palestinian homes destroyed under Sharon's orders, 16000 people made homeless, unknown but heavy casualty count.
September 1982, Sabra and Shatila: S. Lebanon. At least 2000 people murdered in cold blood on Sharon's orders. The majority were women, children and the elderly, and many were mutilated and disembowelled before and after they were murdered.
My mother worked with the International Red Cross for 15 years until 1990. I heard her first hand reports about the ghastly carnage at Sabra and Shatila and showed me photographs years later, when she felt she could talk about it.
And you say that the Israelis never kill civilians on purpose. (!!!!!). Sharon the butcher even goes and visits G.W. Bush at his Crawford Ranch....just shows how phoney, arbitrary and one-sided is his "war on terror".
Wake up.
And...while I think about it...Sharon isn't the only Israeli PM with a terrorist record. The 6th Israeli P.M. Menachem Begin was one of the "pioneers" (!) of modern terrorist methods.
Quote:
In 1946, under his leadership, the Irgun blew up a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where the British were headquartered. Some 90 people- Jews and Arabs, as well as British- were killed, despite warnings that there would be a bombing.
Begin?s picture, that of a wanted terrorist, was posted in all British prisons and offices in Palestine. The British conducted an extensive manhunt for Begin, who had a price on his head that began at $8,000 but was raised to %50,000. Begin escaped the British dragnet by disguising himself as a bearded Orthodox rabbi.
Seriously (if that's possible) I really don't understand this focus on Arafat. We have established (I hope) that he has no control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad - in fact they would take out anyone who does try to exert such control.
So we have firstly someone who is powerless - given that we have also established (again I hope - fervently this time) that he has no links to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. You may have trouble with that bit so we can divert to check that out if you like.
Admittedly he may have aims broadly in sympathy with these two groupings and he may even not object to the MO and the bombings. Or maybe he knows that if he does exert pressure they'll take him down. Maybe a bit of both. But what I cannot understand is the thought process of why people harp on about him so much....he is at best toothless....
I mean what about Hamas and IJ....don't they have any responsibility....hello......??????...earth calling.....tap, tap....
It's almost as if people can't actually face just accepting IJ and Hamas's culpability because they admit themselves and in some warped way you'd be agreeing with them....like you can only blame someone who denies it rather than someone who says 'yep, it was me'....weird......
Obviously, the groups actually commiting the crimes have responsibility. But, so does Arafat. At the very least, he is responsible for allowing them free reign to act as they want, without fear of Arafat interfering. More liekly, he is responsible for providing them with logistical support, in terms of protection, haven, funding, coordination etc. Some claim these groups act as cells and so there is no way one person could control or even influence them. That is just silly. Obviously, the groups in such a small area geographically and from similar backgrounds are going to interact, occasionally or often, intentionally or by chance. Similarly, they will interact with Arafat and/or the PA. Arafat controls the real money, military and influence in the Palestinian areas. It would be unreasonable to expect that anything is outside of his attetion or influence.
How would admitting that Hamas et al are responsible, infer that one agrees with them? They are murdering bastards, who probably are beyond Arafat's total control. That doesn't subtract from their guilt, or mean that Arafat is incapable of assisting them or influencing their decisions.
B.S,, SDW. Do you believe that Israel is *always* in the right? Or are you scared of being seen as anti-Semitic? Or perhaps you are an Islamophobe? Where have you been living? Planet Fox?
Well, someone on these boards has gone on record as saying that Israel, regardless of motives, is always to be considered in the wrong, because he sees it as a war and has chosen sides. Is this the sort of blind assigning of guilt you are referring to?
Well, someone on these boards has gone on record as saying that Israel, regardless of motives, is always to be considered in the wrong, because he sees it as a war and has chosen sides. Is this the sort of blind assigning of guilt you are referring to?
Well, some people on these boards have gone on record as saying that the Palestinians, regardless of motives, have always to be considered in the wrong, because they see it as a war and have chosen sides. This is the sort of blind assigning of guilt I am referring to.
I am no supporter of either side...both sides have engaged and continue to commit horrific acts.I have always referred to Arafat as a terrorist leader with a long history of atrocities. The evidence is there in numerous threads on this topic. When I point out that Israelis do their share of nastiness...some people cant handle that.
When two sides are at war, horrible things are committed by both parties. In warfare, it has always been that way, and always will: there are *no* exceptions. The moral winner (which is not necessarily the military winner) is often the one who has the sympathetic ear of the media. I don't recall how many American media network giants are owned by Palestinians....
Well, some people on these boards have gone on record as saying that the Palestinians, regardless of motives, have always to be considered in the wrong, because they see it as a war and have chosen sides. This is the sort of blind assigning of guilt I am referring to.
No, I don't think they have.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
I am no supporter of either side...both sides have engaged and continue to commit horrific acts.I have always referred to Arafat as a terrorist leader with a long history of atrocities. The evidence is there in numerous threads on this topic. When I point out that Israelis do their share of nastiness...some people cant handle that.
Perehaps, because it seems to be all you want to discuss.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
When two sides are at war, horrible things are committed by both parties. In warfare, it has always been that way, and always will: there are *no* exceptions. The moral winner (which is not necessarily the military winner) is often the one who has the sympathetic ear of the media. I don't recall how many American media network giants are owned by Palestinians....
Wow, you sound more and more like Mahathir Mohamad. In fact, some of your comments are almost exact quotes, it seems. But then, he also feels the need to make them the focus of his attacks. As far as a sympathetic media, do you think if Sharon released an edict requesting the media stop showing injured Palestinian children, because it hurts Israel's image, they would obey? Arafat tells the media not to show pics of children engaged in the conflict, ie rock throwing, fire bombs etc. This was simply because Aaraft realized it made the Palestinians look wrong. The media has in most part complied.The PA still very actively encourages children to take part in the uprising, even does their best to ensure the children are indoctrinated in suicide attacks through theit pop media, schools and child welfare agencies. The media knows all of this, yet they tactitly agree to arafats demands. That would never have been afforded to Sharon
Well, Mahathir did call for an end to violence in his speech so maybe it's not so bad if they do sound a little alike.
But Tulkas old chap, I'm afraid I'm rather more interested in why you would never mention that MM said that - is it that you only hear or are interested in the bits relating to the Jews (less than 5% of his speech) ? Or are you on a deliberate campaign of propoganda ? Or maybe just blinded by something ? Hate maybe ? I wonder....
Try and minimize or apololise all you want for his speech, it was still a hateful message. He singled out a single group for condemnation, based only on their religion. If Bush came out and called for a final victory of Muslims, talked about Muslims trying to reshape the world in their image and about how western nations have to band together to defeat islam in general, how well received would that message be? Would you support it if he made sure that the rest of his message dealt with trying to erradicate Islam peacefuly? And yeah, i guess you could say I am blinded by hate...the hate in the message that you try to defend.
Since segovius wants to minimise the anti-semetic remarks in the speech by Mahathir, here are some of the other bits:
"The reaction of the world shows that they (the Jews) control the world"(comment after reaction to his speech) he could atleast of cited one of the old anti-semites he lifted this one off of
"Well, many newspapers are owned by Jews. They only see that angle and they have a powerful influence over the thinking of many people. Only their side of the picture is given now." that one's for SJO
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." So what, Germany didn't get it done well enough for his satisfaction?
?They invented Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.?Because persecuting them is so obviously right? Because the shouldn't have equal rights? Damn if that isn't exactly what segovius describes when discussing his mooring paradise, one where Jews were second class citizens, who had the honour of being allowed to live and serve their masters. It's no wonder he is defending the speech.
?1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.? Because of course the Muslims are historically the victims of Jewish oppression worldwide and must be trying to defeat Islam. Just another example of, if you need someone to blame for the woes of your people, jews usually make the best scapegoats.
He speech did have some promising parts, but much of it broke down to wallowing in the modern myth that Islam is an oppressed religion. And of course, the oppressors are jews and their European and American servants.
The speech was bigoted bullshit. Admit and move on.
Jenin "massacre" was a lie and you know it. You'll willing to lap up any anti-Jew oooops I mean "Israel" tripe that's tossed to you.
Not taking sides?
No, just pointing out how some people see this in black and white...how one side is "good"....and the other side is "evil". I am only trying to inject a bit of reality into the commonly held perception, (by yourself included it seems), that all Palestinians and Muslims are terrorists by default" and "all Israelis and Americans are blameless and morally right in everything they do".
UN report on Jenin here (4-29-2002): http://www.badil.org/Resources/War_C...nJeninCamp.htm It says that damage was estimated at more than $110 million, 900 houses were damaged/destroyed, 3000-4000 displaced, 269 people injured, 53 killed and 25 missing (as of 4-29-2002). Now does 53 dead qualify as a massacre? I don't know if it does or doesn't...some "massacres" have had fewer victims...but for sure, this one, (massacre or not) does pale into relative insignificance compared to some of Sharon's previous efforts at mass killing.
Are there Palestinians who murder civilians? Yes...ask the parents of Rebekah S, 5 year old Israeli girl murdered by a Hamas bomber, or the relatives of 843 other Israelis who have been cut down by suicide bombers since the start of the intifada. Are there Israelis out there who murder civilians? Yes....ask the relatives of some 2510 Palestinians who have been murdered by the IDF in the same period, or even the parents of Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist deliberately crushed by a D-9 bulldozer while she was in full view. Of course, to you, Scott, these people's lives are of lesser value....and most officials in the Bush administration are of a similar mindset.
Remember also that in war, the truth is always the first casualty.
The speech was bigoted bullshit. Admit and move on. [/B]
Absolutely. Agreed. I concur. Mahathir sounds just like an Islamic version of, say, Richard Perle. Both these men (and all their ilk, no matter what color, creed, political bent or nationality) are sinister, dangerous, bigoted and spiritually in the nursery. The planet needs these maniacs like it needs hitting by an asteroid.
If this is the threshold, then Israel fails. They've admitted to killing civilians. They originally claimed to be using rubber bullets against crowds of civilians and later admitted that they used live ammunition.
Are you willing to condemn them as harshly as you do the Palestinians? If not you're a racist ****. Israel has admitted to killing civilians, but you don't give a ****.
Under what circumstances did theyadmit to killing civillians? Please, I would like to see sources here. You people spew such sh-t all the time, when it's painfully obvious you haven't the slightest CLUE as to what is actually happening. So please, present the facts or shut the hell up.
There's a difference between targeting civilians and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
Also I think we need to define "civilian". 100 "kids" trying to kill someone by pelting them with rocks aint exactly "innocent civilians". Remember stoning works, that's why the bible uses it so much.
There's a difference between targeting civilians and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
Also I think we need to define "civilian". 100 "kids" trying to kill someone by pelting them with rocks aint exactly "innocent civilians". Remember stoning works, that's why the bible uses it so much.
EMGeneratr, this should be proof enough of what I'm saying. If Scott says it's true, something negative about the Israelis, then it's got to be true.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge, if you want to go on believing that, you're free to do so.
It's true wether I believe it or not.
Originally posted by bunge
It's true wether I believe it or not.
Do they kill troops? Yes. Do they also delibrately target civilians? Yes.
Indict Arafat
No need to kill him, just put him in the dock.
Best quote
Imagine it: the world's attention focused on decades worth of documents and communications intercepts linking Arafat to numerous and horrific acts of murder. It would be interesting, to say the least, to hear Jacques Chirac or the self-styled human rights community explain why Milosevic deserves The Hague and Arafat their adulation.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Do they kill troops? Yes. Do they also delibrately target civilians? Yes.
If this is the threshold, then Israel fails. They've admitted to killing civilians. They originally claimed to be using rubber bullets against crowds of civilians and later admitted that they used live ammunition.
Are you willing to condemn them as harshly as you do the Palestinians? If not you're a racist ****. Israel has admitted to killing civilians, but you don't give a ****.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Israel does not do this. That's the distinction. They only target those who they believe to be terrorists. They screw up and sometimes there is collateral damage. They even go after the families of terrorists sometimes. That is simply not the same as attacking those who are known....ABSOLUTELY KNOWN to be innocent in the hopes the carnage effects political change.
Sammi jo, for example, says she isn't on either side. That's the whole point. To not choose sides is to tacitly condone terrorist acts. [/B]
B.S,, SDW. Do you believe that Israel is *always* in the right? Or are you scared of being seen as anti-Semitic? Or perhaps you are an Islamophobe? Where have you been living? Planet Fox?
Take the partial terrorism record of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli P.M. himself:
August 1953: massacre at El Bureig near Gaza: 50 civilians dead
October 1953: massacre at Qibya, Jordan: at least 69 civilians, (about 45 women and children) murdered
October 1953: villages of Budrus and Shuqba attacked, unknown but heavy casualty count.
1956 Qalqilya, West Bank: 90 civilians murdered by deathsquad commanded by Ariel Sharon.
August 1971, Beach camp, Gaza: 2000 Palestinian homes destroyed under Sharon's orders, 16000 people made homeless, unknown but heavy casualty count.
September 1982, Sabra and Shatila: S. Lebanon. At least 2000 people murdered in cold blood on Sharon's orders. The majority were women, children and the elderly, and many were mutilated and disembowelled before and after they were murdered.
Here's an article on Jenin, 2002: http://www.news.scotsman.com/interna...m?id=417052002
My mother worked with the International Red Cross for 15 years until 1990. I heard her first hand reports about the ghastly carnage at Sabra and Shatila and showed me photographs years later, when she felt she could talk about it.
And you say that the Israelis never kill civilians on purpose. (!!!!!). Sharon the butcher even goes and visits G.W. Bush at his Crawford Ranch....just shows how phoney, arbitrary and one-sided is his "war on terror".
Wake up.
And...while I think about it...Sharon isn't the only Israeli PM with a terrorist record. The 6th Israeli P.M. Menachem Begin was one of the "pioneers" (!) of modern terrorist methods.
In 1946, under his leadership, the Irgun blew up a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where the British were headquartered. Some 90 people- Jews and Arabs, as well as British- were killed, despite warnings that there would be a bombing.
Begin?s picture, that of a wanted terrorist, was posted in all British prisons and offices in Palestine. The British conducted an extensive manhunt for Begin, who had a price on his head that began at $8,000 but was raised to %50,000. Begin escaped the British dragnet by disguising himself as a bearded Orthodox rabbi.
That was extracted from an obituary of Begin, from an official Jewish site, http://www.ou.org/chagim/yomhaatzmauth/begin.html just in case you though I was quoting from Al Jazeera.
Originally posted by segovius
Seriously (if that's possible) I really don't understand this focus on Arafat. We have established (I hope) that he has no control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad - in fact they would take out anyone who does try to exert such control.
So we have firstly someone who is powerless - given that we have also established (again I hope - fervently this time) that he has no links to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. You may have trouble with that bit so we can divert to check that out if you like.
Admittedly he may have aims broadly in sympathy with these two groupings and he may even not object to the MO and the bombings. Or maybe he knows that if he does exert pressure they'll take him down. Maybe a bit of both. But what I cannot understand is the thought process of why people harp on about him so much....he is at best toothless....
I mean what about Hamas and IJ....don't they have any responsibility....hello......??????...earth calling.....tap, tap....
It's almost as if people can't actually face just accepting IJ and Hamas's culpability because they admit themselves and in some warped way you'd be agreeing with them....like you can only blame someone who denies it rather than someone who says 'yep, it was me'....weird......
Obviously, the groups actually commiting the crimes have responsibility. But, so does Arafat. At the very least, he is responsible for allowing them free reign to act as they want, without fear of Arafat interfering. More liekly, he is responsible for providing them with logistical support, in terms of protection, haven, funding, coordination etc. Some claim these groups act as cells and so there is no way one person could control or even influence them. That is just silly. Obviously, the groups in such a small area geographically and from similar backgrounds are going to interact, occasionally or often, intentionally or by chance. Similarly, they will interact with Arafat and/or the PA. Arafat controls the real money, military and influence in the Palestinian areas. It would be unreasonable to expect that anything is outside of his attetion or influence.
How would admitting that Hamas et al are responsible, infer that one agrees with them? They are murdering bastards, who probably are beyond Arafat's total control. That doesn't subtract from their guilt, or mean that Arafat is incapable of assisting them or influencing their decisions.
Originally posted by sammi jo
B.S,, SDW. Do you believe that Israel is *always* in the right? Or are you scared of being seen as anti-Semitic? Or perhaps you are an Islamophobe? Where have you been living? Planet Fox?
Well, someone on these boards has gone on record as saying that Israel, regardless of motives, is always to be considered in the wrong, because he sees it as a war and has chosen sides. Is this the sort of blind assigning of guilt you are referring to?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, someone on these boards has gone on record as saying that Israel, regardless of motives, is always to be considered in the wrong, because he sees it as a war and has chosen sides. Is this the sort of blind assigning of guilt you are referring to?
Well, some people on these boards have gone on record as saying that the Palestinians, regardless of motives, have always to be considered in the wrong, because they see it as a war and have chosen sides. This is the sort of blind assigning of guilt I am referring to.
I am no supporter of either side...both sides have engaged and continue to commit horrific acts.I have always referred to Arafat as a terrorist leader with a long history of atrocities. The evidence is there in numerous threads on this topic. When I point out that Israelis do their share of nastiness...some people cant handle that.
When two sides are at war, horrible things are committed by both parties. In warfare, it has always been that way, and always will: there are *no* exceptions. The moral winner (which is not necessarily the military winner) is often the one who has the sympathetic ear of the media. I don't recall how many American media network giants are owned by Palestinians....
Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, some people on these boards have gone on record as saying that the Palestinians, regardless of motives, have always to be considered in the wrong, because they see it as a war and have chosen sides. This is the sort of blind assigning of guilt I am referring to.
No, I don't think they have.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I am no supporter of either side...both sides have engaged and continue to commit horrific acts.I have always referred to Arafat as a terrorist leader with a long history of atrocities. The evidence is there in numerous threads on this topic. When I point out that Israelis do their share of nastiness...some people cant handle that.
Perehaps, because it seems to be all you want to discuss.
Originally posted by sammi jo
When two sides are at war, horrible things are committed by both parties. In warfare, it has always been that way, and always will: there are *no* exceptions. The moral winner (which is not necessarily the military winner) is often the one who has the sympathetic ear of the media. I don't recall how many American media network giants are owned by Palestinians....
Wow, you sound more and more like Mahathir Mohamad. In fact, some of your comments are almost exact quotes, it seems. But then, he also feels the need to make them the focus of his attacks. As far as a sympathetic media, do you think if Sharon released an edict requesting the media stop showing injured Palestinian children, because it hurts Israel's image, they would obey? Arafat tells the media not to show pics of children engaged in the conflict, ie rock throwing, fire bombs etc. This was simply because Aaraft realized it made the Palestinians look wrong. The media has in most part complied.The PA still very actively encourages children to take part in the uprising, even does their best to ensure the children are indoctrinated in suicide attacks through theit pop media, schools and child welfare agencies. The media knows all of this, yet they tactitly agree to arafats demands. That would never have been afforded to Sharon
Originally posted by sammi jo
...
Here's an article on Jenin, 2002: http://www.news.scotsman.com/interna...m?id=417052002
...
Jenin "massacre" was a lie and you know it. You'll willing to lap up any anti-Jew oooops I mean "Israel" tripe that's tossed to you.
Not taking sides?
Originally posted by segovius
Well, Mahathir did call for an end to violence in his speech so maybe it's not so bad if they do sound a little alike.
But Tulkas old chap, I'm afraid I'm rather more interested in why you would never mention that MM said that - is it that you only hear or are interested in the bits relating to the Jews (less than 5% of his speech) ? Or are you on a deliberate campaign of propoganda ? Or maybe just blinded by something ? Hate maybe ? I wonder....
Try and minimize or apololise all you want for his speech, it was still a hateful message. He singled out a single group for condemnation, based only on their religion. If Bush came out and called for a final victory of Muslims, talked about Muslims trying to reshape the world in their image and about how western nations have to band together to defeat islam in general, how well received would that message be? Would you support it if he made sure that the rest of his message dealt with trying to erradicate Islam peacefuly? And yeah, i guess you could say I am blinded by hate...the hate in the message that you try to defend.
"The reaction of the world shows that they (the Jews) control the world"(comment after reaction to his speech) he could atleast of cited one of the old anti-semites he lifted this one off of
"Well, many newspapers are owned by Jews. They only see that angle and they have a powerful influence over the thinking of many people. Only their side of the picture is given now." that one's for SJO
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." So what, Germany didn't get it done well enough for his satisfaction?
?They invented Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.?Because persecuting them is so obviously right? Because the shouldn't have equal rights? Damn if that isn't exactly what segovius describes when discussing his mooring paradise, one where Jews were second class citizens, who had the honour of being allowed to live and serve their masters. It's no wonder he is defending the speech.
?1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.? Because of course the Muslims are historically the victims of Jewish oppression worldwide and must be trying to defeat Islam. Just another example of, if you need someone to blame for the woes of your people, jews usually make the best scapegoats.
He speech did have some promising parts, but much of it broke down to wallowing in the modern myth that Islam is an oppressed religion. And of course, the oppressors are jews and their European and American servants.
The speech was bigoted bullshit. Admit and move on.
Originally posted by Scott
Jenin "massacre" was a lie and you know it. You'll willing to lap up any anti-Jew oooops I mean "Israel" tripe that's tossed to you.
Not taking sides?
No, just pointing out how some people see this in black and white...how one side is "good"....and the other side is "evil". I am only trying to inject a bit of reality into the commonly held perception, (by yourself included it seems), that all Palestinians and Muslims are terrorists by default" and "all Israelis and Americans are blameless and morally right in everything they do".
UN report on Jenin here (4-29-2002): http://www.badil.org/Resources/War_C...nJeninCamp.htm It says that damage was estimated at more than $110 million, 900 houses were damaged/destroyed, 3000-4000 displaced, 269 people injured, 53 killed and 25 missing (as of 4-29-2002). Now does 53 dead qualify as a massacre? I don't know if it does or doesn't...some "massacres" have had fewer victims...but for sure, this one, (massacre or not) does pale into relative insignificance compared to some of Sharon's previous efforts at mass killing.
Are there Palestinians who murder civilians? Yes...ask the parents of Rebekah S, 5 year old Israeli girl murdered by a Hamas bomber, or the relatives of 843 other Israelis who have been cut down by suicide bombers since the start of the intifada. Are there Israelis out there who murder civilians? Yes....ask the relatives of some 2510 Palestinians who have been murdered by the IDF in the same period, or even the parents of Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist deliberately crushed by a D-9 bulldozer while she was in full view. Of course, to you, Scott, these people's lives are of lesser value....and most officials in the Bush administration are of a similar mindset.
Remember also that in war, the truth is always the first casualty.
Originally posted by Tulkas
The speech was bigoted bullshit. Admit and move on. [/B]
Absolutely. Agreed. I concur. Mahathir sounds just like an Islamic version of, say, Richard Perle. Both these men (and all their ilk, no matter what color, creed, political bent or nationality) are sinister, dangerous, bigoted and spiritually in the nursery. The planet needs these maniacs like it needs hitting by an asteroid.
?uçking assholes.
Originally posted by bunge
If this is the threshold, then Israel fails. They've admitted to killing civilians. They originally claimed to be using rubber bullets against crowds of civilians and later admitted that they used live ammunition.
Are you willing to condemn them as harshly as you do the Palestinians? If not you're a racist ****. Israel has admitted to killing civilians, but you don't give a ****.
Under what circumstances did theyadmit to killing civillians? Please, I would like to see sources here. You people spew such sh-t all the time, when it's painfully obvious you haven't the slightest CLUE as to what is actually happening. So please, present the facts or shut the hell up.
Also I think we need to define "civilian". 100 "kids" trying to kill someone by pelting them with rocks aint exactly "innocent civilians". Remember stoning works, that's why the bible uses it so much.
Originally posted by Scott
There's a difference between targeting civilians and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
Also I think we need to define "civilian". 100 "kids" trying to kill someone by pelting them with rocks aint exactly "innocent civilians". Remember stoning works, that's why the bible uses it so much.
EMGeneratr, this should be proof enough of what I'm saying. If Scott says it's true, something negative about the Israelis, then it's got to be true.
It's not BS, it was random assassinations.
Originally posted by Scott
The fact that the left embraces Arafat as a brother in arms and condemns Israel for not wanting to be wiped off the map speaks volumes of them.
We want proof! We want links! Where's the proof??!?