[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
TEnding the terrorism would simply place them back at square one with the US vetoing any UN resolution requiring Israel to give back to Palestine land grabbed after 1967.

And suicide bombings aren't getting them anywhere. Just spinning their wheels, the Palestinians and their leadership are, waiting on the IDF to whack more of their murderous terrorists.

If some nation vastly more powerful than yours took your land and you received no support from the international community, how would you respond?

they took it in wars that the Arab community were responsible for. Lest you forget (even if you ever knew it), the West Bank was Jordanian territory. The land is Israel's now, and it will transfer it to whom it seems fit, and that might happen when the Palestinian people show some concern for the continued existence of Israel and its women and children (as opposed to harbouring those who blow innocents into bloody pieces).

there is no justification or equivocation for suicide bombings or terrorism of any kind.

[Uday's Carcass]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by macvillage.net:
IMHO the best method would be to lobby with the other Arab nations and completely embargo. No trade, no oil, no medical, even baracade roads leaving Israel. Making Israel only accessible by Air or sea.[quote]robert, this amounts to a blockade. Blockades are acts of war. No Arab country would participate because they'd get the living poo kicked out of them. Be real.

Israel has claims in the past that land into North Africa (mainly Egypt) Saudi Arabia, all of Jordan, and Syria are Israel's.

They won't stop short until they Achieve the goal in getting the desired land.

robert, if Israel wanted additional territory, it would just take it. Its nuclear arsenal ensures its safety from outside intervention. Time and time again you take big bites from that Propaganda Pie. Do yourself a favour and cancel those daily email newsletters from Jewish Conspiracy Weekly. Next you'll be telling us to safeguard our children because Jews are coming to get them for a blood ritual.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
robert, if Israel wanted additional territory, it would just take it. Its nuclear arsenal ensures its safety from outside intervention. Time and time again you take big bites from that Propaganda Pie. Do yourself a favour and cancel those daily email newsletters from Jewish Conspiracy Weekly. Next you'll be telling us to safeguard our children because Jews are coming to get them for a blood ritual. [/B]

not sure if you noticed... but they slowly are doing it. They have been expanding their land for years.

They won't use nukes... since that contaminates the land they want. It has to be done so that they don't have to rebuild.

That's why Hitler used diplomacy to take part of Europe before a shot was fired.... he gained much resources without damaging a thing. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't have done nearly what he did. He wouldn't have had the power.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
there is no justification or equivocation for suicide bombings or terrorism of any kind. [/B]

What's your take on the following then:

1) The French revolution during which revolutionaries committed acts of terrorism against their rulers;
2) The US War of Independence during which 'Americans' used guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage (acts recognised then as now as acts of terrorism) against the British;
3) The French Resistance - clearly acts of terrorism that the Germans labelled as such during WWII;
4) The 'Armed Struggle' of the African National Congress and other groups of terrorists against the apartheid government of South Africa?

Was there no justification for any of those?

I think "terrorist" has simply become a word used to suppress freedoms and pursue interests at will. It has replaced "communist."

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
What's your take on the following then:

1) The French revolution during which revolutionaries committed acts of terrorism against their rulers;
2) The US War of Independence during which 'Americans' used guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage (acts recognised then as now as acts of terrorism) against the British;
3) The French Resistance - clearly acts of terrorism that the Germans labelled as such during WWII;
4) The 'Armed Struggle' of the African National Congress and other groups of terrorists against the apartheid government of South Africa?

Was there no justification for any of those?

I think "terrorist" has simply become a word used to suppress freedoms and pursue interests at will. It has replaced "communist."

Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

And I'm sure in 50 years, there will be a new title for a group we don't like.

It follows the Cold War very closely. Including McCarthyism = Ashcroftism. Which is funny. Ashcroftism is becoming a word. Most consider it offensive to be called an "Ashcroft". Even conservatives take it personally.

And America practically pioneered "Terrorism". America still defends the use of state-funded terrorism, as well as Israel. We refused to outlaw it in front of the UN. The US has used the tactic many times. And will not give it up.

Remember: The US won't use it's military to directly attack civilians. But has in the past hired others to do so. Look no further than Lebanon, Columbia for that.

It's still terrorism. Just a different group behind it.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Troll:
1) The French revolution during which revolutionaries committed acts of terrorism against their rulers;

rulers don't count--only actions against civilians and noncombatants.

2) The US War of Independence during which 'Americans' used guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage (acts recognised then as now as acts of terrorism) against the British;

your analysis is flawed. guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage are legitimate tactics when directed at military targets or infrastructure (of any kind).

3) The French Resistance - clearly acts of terrorism that the Germans labelled as such during WWII;

and you care what the Nazis said about the French resistance? If the French were attacking military targets, then that's okay. But even during WWII civilian populations were targets by the Allied armies--it was an attempt to destroy their will to fight and decimate any production infrastructure.

Was there no justification for any of those?

There is no justification for brutal murder of women and children. You keep missing that point. If attacks were simply directed against the military, then it would side more with a war for independence. Rather, the planned targets are almost always civilian, and designed to produce fear and mass casualties.

I think "terrorist" has simply become a word used to suppress freedoms and pursue interests at will. It has replaced "communist."

You are again completely wrong. The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists. Hamas and the Jihad are terrorists. Al Queda are terrorists. You equivocate and excuse murder and brutality and attempt to legitimise the use of suicide bombings because you are too weak-minded to take a moral stand against this type of behaviour. There are some definite rights and wrongs in this world. Good and Evil. Intentionally blowing up little babies falls squarely into the Evil category. Time for you to see that. Grow a pair.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
rulers don't count--only actions against civilians and noncombatants.[/b]your analysis is flawed. guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage are legitimate tactics when directed at military targets or infrastructure (of any kind).[/b]and you care what the Nazis said about the French resistance? If the French were attacking military targets, then that's okay. But even during WWII civilian populations were targets by the Allied armies--it was an attempt to destroy their will to fight and decimate any production infrastructure.[/b]There is no justification for brutal murder of women and children. You keep missing that point. If attacks were simply directed against the military, then it would side more with a war for independence. Rather, the planned targets are almost always civilian, and designed to produce fear and mass casualties.You are again completely wrong. The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists. Hamas and the Jihad are terrorists. Al Queda are terrorists. You equivocate and excuse murder and brutality and attempt to legitimise the use of suicide bombings because you are too weak-minded to take a moral stand against this type of behaviour. There are some definite rights and wrongs in this world. Good and Evil. Intentionally blowing up little babies falls squarely into the Evil category. Time for you to see that. Grow a pair. [/B]

Actually, to be accurate in all cases, the attacks were against anyone who supported the opponent.

American Patriots for example attacked any British Citizen who wasn't against the King. Their homes were burnt, often with their families inside.

The french did the same during their revolution.

The Russians (among others during WWII) initiated a "Scorched earth policy". If you were against the Nazi's, you left. If you were neutral, or for the Nazi's... you would have died. Regardless of if you were an active participant or not.

The north and south did the same thing during the US civil war.



The point is, it's all terrorism. All of it. Just because it's carried out by your side... doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
rulers don't count--only actions against civilians and noncombatants.[/b]your analysis is flawed. guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage are legitimate tactics when directed at military targets or infrastructure (of any kind).[/b]and you care what the Nazis said about the French resistance? If the French were attacking military targets, then that's okay. But even during WWII civilian populations were targets by the Allied armies--it was an attempt to destroy their will to fight and decimate any production infrastructure.[/b]There is no justification for brutal murder of women and children. You keep missing that point. If attacks were simply directed against the military, then it would side more with a war for independence. Rather, the planned targets are almost always civilian, and designed to produce fear and mass casualties.You are again completely wrong. The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists. Hamas and the Jihad are terrorists. Al Queda are terrorists. You equivocate and excuse murder and brutality and attempt to legitimise the use of suicide bombings because you are too weak-minded to take a moral stand against this type of behaviour. There are some definite rights and wrongs in this world. Good and Evil. Intentionally blowing up little babies falls squarely into the Evil category. Time for you to see that. Grow a pair. [/B]

Here is some evil for you . It goes both ways.

[Wiskedjak]

Terrorism is O.K. as long as you support the side that is doing it. Actually, it's not even called "terrorism" then ... it's called "freedom fighting"

[shmerek]

Hypothetical question: If American citizens started building settlements within Iraq claiming some right to live there do you think that they would be a legitimate target of Iraqi occupational resistance?

[ambush]

It'd be really cool to see the US at war in 3 countries at a time. That'd be kinda sad.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Hypothetical question: If American citizens started building settlements within Iraq claiming some right to live there do you think that they would be a legitimate target of Iraqi occupational resistance?

If Israeli citizens started building settlements within America claiming some right to live there do you think that they would be a legitimate target of American occupational resistance?

[ambush]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
rulers don't count--only actions against civilians and noncombatants.[/b]your analysis is flawed. guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage are legitimate tactics when directed at military targets or infrastructure (of any kind).[/b]and you care what the Nazis said about the French resistance? If the French were attacking military targets, then that's okay. But even during WWII civilian populations were targets by the Allied armies--it was an attempt to destroy their will to fight and decimate any production infrastructure.[/b]There is no justification for brutal murder of women and children. You keep missing that point. If attacks were simply directed against the military, then it would side more with a war for independence. Rather, the planned targets are almost always civilian, and designed to produce fear and mass casualties.You are again completely wrong. The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists. Hamas and the Jihad are terrorists. Al Queda are terrorists. You equivocate and excuse murder and brutality and attempt to legitimise the use of suicide bombings because you are too weak-minded to take a moral stand against this type of behaviour. There are some definite rights and wrongs in this world. Good and Evil. Intentionally blowing up little babies falls squarely into the Evil category. Time for you to see that. Grow a pair. [/B]

Army kills babies and women, but they're better at covering and hiding the whole thing.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:

If Israeli citizens started building settlements within America claiming some right to live there do you think that they would be a legitimate target of American occupational resistance?

Huh? How could there be American resistance on American soil? And ya I am sure if Israel citizens decided to annex part of Ohio and say it was now part of Israel and not the USA it would be squashed pretty darn quick unless it was an embassy.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
your analysis is flawed. guerilla warfare, surprise attack and sabotage are legitimate tactics when directed at military targets or infrastructure (of any kind).

Macvillage pointed out that you're wrong. In each of those cases civilians were targeted. I notice that you conveniently left out the example of the liberation movement in South Africa.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
rulers don't count--only actions against civilians and noncombatants.

Right, so if we exclude the attack on the UN and the attack on the Jordanian embassy, what's happening in Iraq right now is, according to you, not terrorism but a valid liberation movement against the rulers of Iraq.

One might say that Israelis are the rulers of the Palestinians. It's a democracy, Israelis vote, each one of them (children excluded) have the power to stop the oppression.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists. Hamas and the Jihad are terrorists. Al Queda are terrorists.

You fudge the issues there. That's precisely what Sharon is trying to get you to do. Equate Hamas with Al Qaeda. It's not the same thing.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
You equivocate and excuse murder and brutality and attempt to legitimise the use of suicide bombings because you are too weak-minded to take a moral stand against this type of behaviour. There are some definite rights and wrongs in this world. Good and Evil. Intentionally blowing up little babies falls squarely into the Evil category. Time for you to see that. Grow a pair.

Ah the classic right wing manifesto - binary logic. There is no grey, it's all black and white. Bush's excuse is that he is a dry drunk, what's yours?

Excuse me if I struggle with morality a little more than you do. Forgive me for not having the clarity of vision that you do, but for me there is grey in almost everything. Very little in my world reduces itself to a 1 or a 0. The grey in this is the fact that there are two competing morals at play here. In the left corner is our morality (I do share your revulsion), that it is "evil" to blow people to smithereens. In the right corner is our morality (you seem to share this by recognising the concept of a war of independence) that it is evil to oppress people - to steal their property, torture them, deny them basic human rights, massacre them arbitrarily and that such action pushes people to respond violently. The way that competition of morals plays itself out for me is that it forces me to recognise that where the oppressed cannot meet the oppressor's force, the first moral has to crumble if the second is to be recognised. Upholding the first moral sometime has the effect of entrenching oppression.

Nelson Mandela said it far better than I ever could. Think about what he said in the context of the Palestinians. This quote comes from his Statement from the Dock at the Rivonia Trial where he was sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism:

I, and the others who started [Umkhonto We Sizwe, the military arm of the ANC that committed terrorist acts], did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law.

We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights.

In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, we said:

"The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom".

I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Troll:
You fudge the issues there. That's precisely what Sharon is trying to get you to do. Equate Hamas with Al Qaeda. It's not the same thing.

NOT THE SAME THING? WTF? Hamas routinely and deliberately targets women and babies to MURDER THEM, and you TOLERATE, EQUIVOCATE, and EXCUSE THIS MURDER. DISGUSTING. Palestinians deserve freedom, but Hamas deserves to die.

Allah help your poor, pathetic, destitute soul.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
NOT THE SAME THING? WTF? Hamas routinely and deliberately targets women and babies to MURDER THEM, and you TOLERATE, EQUIVOCATE, and EXCUSE THIS MURDER. DISGUSTING. Palestinians deserve freedom, but Hamas deserves to die.

Allah help your poor, pathetic, destitute soul.

Israel is doing the exact same thing against civilians.

What don't you understand about that.

Even Israel doesn't deny it. They just claim it's justified.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Israel is doing the exact same thing against civilians.

What don't you understand about that.

Even Israel doesn't deny it. They just claim it's justified.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Even Israel doesn't deny it. They just claim it's justified.

you better produce some quotes and sources on that garbage. And something legit, Robert, not your subscription to Antisemite Anonymous.

[macvillage.net]

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c...f?OpenDocument

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/02/isr-pa-0221.htm

Among ten million other's documenting Israel's intentional disregard and targeting of civilians.

Not to mention Israeli Soldier kills UN guard:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/me....israel.death/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2541455.stm

No punishment, or inquery despite shooting unarmed UN guard (IN A UN AMBULANCE ... WHICH IS MARKED). Shortly after being checked, as all UN equipment is checked by Israeli soldiers.

There is a clear intent, just in these 2 cases. *IF* Israel wasn't intentionally targeting civilians, they would take measures to prevent it. They neve have, and continue to allow it.

There is 0% chance that a sniper made a mistake and shot a UN worker. That's 100% intentional.

The fact that Israel didn't deal with it shows that Israel really doesn't care. Any other country would have hung the individual responsible to make a public statement that they don't endorse this behavior.


One of the first human rights activists to condemn terrorist attacks on Israeli's is also critical:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150131996


Your completely alone in thinking Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians.

Agian, we know their weapons, and what they are capable of. Israel is more than capable of targeted attacks. They don't do that. They go for widespread damage... except when it's near jewish property. Then it's calculated so that the damage is minimal.


Hopefully Sharon and Arafat will be posting their daily schedules next to their good friend:
http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic

The three have much in common. The same exact love for humanity, same exact level of respect for human rights. I'm sure if they haven't talked a bit already, they would become very good friends.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There is a clear intent, just in these 2 cases. *IF* Israel wasn't intentionally targeting civilians, they would take measures to prevent it. They neve have, and continue to allow it.

robert, that's not proof and you know it. It's just carelessness and callousness, not proof of intent to slaughter innocents. Proof would be producing statements by Israelis that they deliberately target innocents and women and little babies to murder (like Hamas does). You are drawing causation from correlation--a common mistake for immature intellects.

The fact that Israel didn't deal with it shows that Israel really doesn't care. Any other country would have hung the individual responsible to make a public statement that they don't endorse this behavior.

They probably don't care. That's their failing. However, lacking empathy and symapthy aren't crimes, and they don't demonstrate intent to murder innocents (as Islamic Jihad does)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
NOT THE SAME THING? WTF? Hamas routinely and deliberately targets women and babies to MURDER THEM, and you TOLERATE, EQUIVOCATE, and EXCUSE THIS MURDER. DISGUSTING. Palestinians deserve freedom, but Hamas deserves to die.

In your binary world maybe they are both the same. Ferraris and wieners are both red so they're the same too not so?

You won't understand why there is a difference until you accept the fact that not everything that is labelled terrorism is necessarily bad. You are clearly unable to address that substantive point which I have raised in detail above so I see little sense in pointing out the obvious differences between Bin Laden's policies and those of Hamas.

I think the world is a little more complex than you imagine. Sometimes we unfortunately do have to tolerate and excuse death when it is necessary for the achievement of a greater good. You did it 7,000 times over in Iraq, you do it every other day in Israel so I hardly see how you can validly claim to occupy any moral highground. It's really just a question of defining the good. The liberation of Iraqis for you justifies 7,000 innocent civilian victims but you're unable to justify any deaths for the liberation of Palestinians?

I think the people that cannot understand Hamas' action are those who really don't have a problem with the status quo - those who think there's nothing wrong with the Palestinians being treated the way they are. Those who believe in apartheid and the oppression of human rights. That group is getting smaller and smaller.

All of which is not to say that I condone Hamas killing people. It's just to say that I understand why they feel they have no other choice.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
robert, that's not proof and you know it. It's just carelessness and callousness, not proof of intent to slaughter innocents. Proof would be producing statements by Israelis that they deliberately target innocents and women and little babies to murder (like Hamas does). You are drawing causation from correlation--a common mistake for immature intellects. [/b]They probably don't care. That's their failing. However, lacking empathy and symapthy aren't crimes, and they don't demonstrate intent to murder innocents (as Islamic Jihad does) [/B]

These were intentionally commited crimes. A sniper doesn't mistaking strike a UN Ambulence! That's clearly intentional.

Snipers have tons of experience. They don't make rediculus mistakes like that without going completely AWOL.... and we would know if that was the case.

That sniper was clearly instructed to do what he did.

Israeli military chooses the municions to drop... and they chose what they did. Larger weapons than needed. More expensive than needed... for the purpose of civilian casualties.

It's just looking at the facts.

[Spliffdaddy]

puhleeze.

Check back after Israel bombs a busload of so-called 'Palestinian' women and children. Then we'll talk.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
These were intentionally commited crimes. A sniper doesn't mistaking strike a UN Ambulence! That's clearly intentional.

Snipers have tons of experience. They don't make rediculus mistakes like that without going completely AWOL.... and we would know if that was the case.

That sniper was clearly instructed to do what he did.

Israeli military chooses the municions to drop... and they chose what they did. Larger weapons than needed. More expensive than needed... for the purpose of civilian casualties.

It's just looking at the facts.

and you ignore my earlier retort, robert. So be it. Correlation does not equal causation.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
puhleeze.

Check back after Israel bombs a busload of so-called 'Palestinian' women and children. Then we'll talk.

IMHO, both sides have innocent blood on their hands. The only difference is Isreal can do it more technologically effective, via airstrikes and missiles, whereas palestinians have to do it more low tech and directly through carbombs and suicide bombers. Different methods, same sad result.

Look, you can deny the blood on Israel's hands, and call it justified, or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that its there.

I don't favor one side over the other in this conflict. I think they're both horribly wrong. The problem is all the actual power is in the hands of Israel, so in order to end this, they are going to have to do more of the facilitating of whatever solution works.
However, myopically claiming its all the fault of the palestinians is blinding yourself to the total problem.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
However, myopically claiming its all the fault of the palestinians is blinding yourself to the total problem.

And is the solution to the Total Problem a Final Solution? Your Hamas and Jihad buddies would take that track, even if Palestinians were given their own state this very minute.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm sorry. I still don't understand how the indiscriminate killing of women and children by the so-called 'Palestinians' is excuseable.

You can try to make me believe that Israeli actions are no better - but you've got a long way to go to convince me of that.

I wouldn't shed any tears if the so-called Palestinians were evicted. Let's put it like that.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm sorry. I still don't understand how the indiscriminate killing of women and children by the so-called 'Palestinians' is excuseable.

You can try to make me believe that Israeli actions are no better - but you've got a long way to go to convince me of that.

I wouldn't shed any tears if the so-called Palestinians were evicted. Let's put it like that.

We know you hate arabs. You have stated this a million times. No need to repeat yourself.

It's getting old. It really is.

[Spliffdaddy]

That's nice.

Now tell me, which ones are the Arabs?

I honestly have no clue.

I need to know who it is I hate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
And is the solution to the Total Problem a Final Solution? Your Hamas and Jihad buddies would take that track, even if Palestinians were given their own state this very minute.

now, see? this is where your paranoia comes in. I have said nothing that says I am buddies with Hamas...you've just taken what I've said, that both sides are horribly wrong, and then jumped me as if I'm supporting one side. Then, you further accuse me of supporting a Final Solution.

Man, try some decaffeinated coffee or something. You are seeing things in people's posts that aren't there. You are blinded by your own hatred to the point where you are putting very detestable words in people's mouths. THIS is why you discourage rational discussion.

Man, take a break and get your head back together, but I shall respond to your vile paranoia no longer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm sorry. I still don't understand how the indiscriminate killing of women and children by the so-called 'Palestinians' is excuseable.

You can try to make me believe that Israeli actions are no better - but you've got a long way to go to convince me of that.

I wouldn't shed any tears if the so-called Palestinians were evicted. Let's put it like that.

If this is directed at me, again, you and Uday are putting words in people's mouths. I've never said anything like your first paragraph. I've said both sides have innocent blood on their hands. Reread my post without your blinders.

[Spliffdaddy]

So you agree it's a good thing when the Israeli Defense Force targets Hamas leaders and members? Barring the occasional civilian casualty, I mean.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So you agree it's a good thing when the Israeli Defense Force targets Hamas leaders and members? Barring the occasional civilian casualty, I mean.

who are you talking to?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If this is directed at me, again, you and Uday are putting words in people's mouths. I've never said anything like your first paragraph. I've said both sides have innocent blood on their hands. Reread my post without your blinders.

Apparantly everyone here is pledging money to Hamas.

Or so he claims.



I'll tell you what Uday.... pour gasoline on yourself, and light yourself... and I'll participate in the flamewar. Until your buring... it's not worth it.


I think vMarks had it right to just bail.

[Spliffdaddy]

The, um, other Lerkfish?

come out come out wherever you are.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So you agree it's a good thing when the Israeli Defense Force targets Hamas leaders and members? Barring the occasional civilian casualty, I mean.

no, I've never said that, either. Keep trying, maybe one day the words you try to put in my mouth will actually be words I've actually said.

(thanks for letting me know this pointless attack was directed at me. with a lot of simultaneous cross posting, it is difficult to know to answer posts unless you directly address them to people by name)

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, if you don't support the homicidal actions of Hamas and you don't want them killed, either - would you support the capture and removal (exile, for example) of Palestinian Hamas leaders and members?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
would you support the capture and removal (exile, for example) of Palestinian Hamas leaders and members?

not I, says the Eternally Damned Demonseed of Saddam Hussein. Give 'em a one-way ticket to Hell. Otherwise they'll just telecommute to Terrorist Central.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Well, if you don't support the homicidal actions of Hamas and you don't want them killed, either - would you support the capture and removal (exile, for example) of Palestinian Hamas leaders and members?

I for one would.

I think jailing Nelson Mandela was a tragedy, but it was better than sentencing him to death, which was better than assassinating him. Being captured is par for the course for a liberation movement. It's a hazard of the job. I think it would be a whole lot less painful if Israel would take a real interest in uplifting the Palestinian people, giving them something to lose instead of giving them more and more of a reason to kill Israelis. That would be the ideal solution. In the interim, capturing them is better than killing them.

You can't exile them - they're already in exile!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Well, if you don't support the homicidal actions of Hamas and you don't want them killed, either - would you support the capture and removal (exile, for example) of Palestinian Hamas leaders and members?

Yep.

In addition to Israeli military leaders.

All scum should burn. I'm willing to give the lethal injection to them all if asked. Each and every one of them, both sides. And I'll do it with a smile... just like these -->

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
puhleeze.

Check back after Israel bombs a busload of so-called 'Palestinian' women and children. Then we'll talk.

In case you missed it the first time

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by shmerek:
In case you missed it the first time

Those were a few crazies doing their own thing. The state of Israel didn't attempt it or endorse the action. Israel doesn't deliberately target women and babies for brutal deaths, unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad who do it routinely and absolutely deliberately.

You were seriously stretching that comparison, and I'm surprised you posted it knowing how easy it'd be to shoot it down.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Those were a few crazies doing their own thing. The state of Israel didn't attempt it or endorse the action. Israel doesn't deliberately target women and babies for brutal deaths, unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad who do it routinely and absolutely deliberately.

You were seriously stretching that comparison, and I'm surprised you posted it knowing how easy it'd be to shoot it down.

Wrong it is exactly the same thing civilians targeting other civilians. Israelis targeting arab girls how is that different please explain?. Get a grip.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Those were a few crazies doing their own thing. The state of Israel didn't attempt it or endorse the action. Israel doesn't deliberately target women and babies for brutal deaths, unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad who do it routinely and absolutely deliberately.

You were seriously stretching that comparison, and I'm surprised you posted it knowing how easy it'd be to shoot it down.

But according to you. A few is the majority. Just a few Jews, doesn't qualify as the entire state of Israel.

But we can condemn all Palestinians on the actions of a few.

And Israel does target the inocent. Just ask their own Air Force. Who has been the latest to go public over this.

I'm curious if your related to Sharon. You seem to consider him to be infalable, despite his continued persistance to do the very thing he wants to stop.

[shmerek]

The fact is over the past three years Israel has killed far more palestinian women and children than Hamas et all. Israel has also killed international peace activists, cameramen, UN workers...

Oh sorry we killed your kid but it wasn't deliberate so that is okay.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by shmerek:
The fact is over the past three years Israel has killed far more palestinian women and children than Hamas et all. Israel has also killed international peace activists, cameramen, UN workers...

Oh sorry we killed your kid but it wasn't deliberate so that is okay.

But it's not strange that a trained military, with the best weapons available, including satelite guided missles can make more casualties than a bunch of untrained gurrilla fighters with homemade weapons made of material bought at a hardware store.



Hamas kills less civilians on purpose than Israel kills "by Accident". And that's with Israel having some of the best weapons available.

Israel couldn't make that many "mistakes" if they tried.

Snipers don't "mistakenly" snipe a UN worker in a marked UN ambulence, just a short distance from a checkpoint where it was searched.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by shmerek:
The fact is over the past three years Israel has killed far more palestinian women and children than Hamas et all.

stats and legit sources please. I doubt you can produce.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But we can condemn all Palestinians on the actions of a few.

go ahead if you want, robert, but I don't. I condemn the terrorists and those who support them. And I have never stated otherwise or sought to apply the terrorist label to Palestinians (other than Hamas et al and any of their supporters).

I'm curious if your related to Sharon. You seem to consider him to be infalable, despite his continued persistance to do the very thing he wants to stop.

robert, I challenge you to back up your lies. I never speak about Sharon, and I don't have an opinion on him one way or another. You're grasping at straws.

Time to crush some tinfoil over that antenna, cause you're getting some serious interference (said Dennis Miller once upon a time).

[Troll]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
The state of Israel didn't attempt it or endorse the action.

Israel's standard motus operandi is to use terrorism against the Palestinians. It's their OFFICIAL policy even if they don't put it in so many words.

Terrorism is using fear to achieve political aims. Terrorism is not about the act of actually killing people. The Palestinians don't intend to kill every Israeli on the planet through suicide bombs. They realise that isn't feasible. The point of blowing up people in caf�s is to strike fear into their hearts. To turn 20 dead people into symbols of the danger, to make Israelis so afraid that their society can no longer function in the hopes that when that happens they will ask themselves questions about how they treat the Palestinians.

The point of blowing up civilian houses and not caring about civilian casualties when assassinating people is to do precisely what the Palestinians are doing to Israelis - it is to make examples, to create symbols, to strike fear into Palestinians' hearts. Israel believes that it will be able to get rid of terrorism by using such overwhelming force that Palestinians will be too afraid to attack Israel. Those are two sides of the same coin. In both cases, the parties are using force and the threat of force to frighten the other side into making political concessions. Terrorism - on BOTH sides.