Israel Bombing footage

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: keird
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As kierd resolves, that "I still can't find Palestine on my map.", he has unerringly gotten to the root of the conflict.

Because the just and the rational realize both Israelis and Palestinians are on the same map, and denying one or the other is irrational. And even more stupid is the assumption that we can ignore the rights of one group to the exclusion of the rights of the other group.

Or maybe it's because it's not on the map.

Aren't you supposed to be killing children?

Care to seek your heart and tell us why it isn't on the map?

Well said.
Well said in what way??

Prior to 1949 Palestine did not exist and has NEVER existed as an independent country.

Even the existence of a group of people called "Palestinians" is a recent creation.

Look at what Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the PLO said in 1977
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Craig234


Missing a K?

If I'm not mistaken, the KKK is against the jewish folks. I fully support the jewish folk bombing the hell out of those Palestinians.

Try again dingle berry.

You missed the poit. The point is that your attitude towards the Palastenians resembles the attitude of a certain organization towards blacks some time ago.

The KKK would have a position on Palestenians a lot closer to yours than to mine.

The point was a reference to the broader issue of one group preaching hate and violence towards another, not the smaller specific topic about Israeli policy.

Dingle Berry is the nicest insult in a while though, I won't object now.

Perhaps I shouldn't mix kidding with the more serious points. Seriously, your views have flaws ranging from oversimplicity - to be generous - to dehumanization.

You are the counterpart, in fact, to the peope you hate. You are the victim of ideology making you want violence against a group. So are they.

You are incapable in your current state of any sensible approach to the situation. So are they.

All you and they can offer is a continuation of the violence until one side or the other is obliterated, cheering each victory and condemning each of their on the way.

You are part of the problem.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Craig234


Missing a K?

If I'm not mistaken, the KKK is against the jewish folks. I fully support the jewish folk bombing the hell out of those Palestinians.

Try again dingle berry.

You missed the poit. The point is that your attitude towards the Palastenians resembles the attitude of a certain organization towards blacks some time ago.

The KKK would have a position on Palestenians a lot closer to yours than to mine.

The point was a reference to the broader issue of one group preaching hate and violence towards another, not the smaller specific topic about Israeli policy.

Dingle Berry is the nicest insult in a while though, I won't object now.

Perhaps I shouldn't mix kidding with the more serious points. Seriously, your views have flaws ranging from oversimplicity - to be generous - to dehumanization.

You are the counterpart, in fact, to the peope you hate. You are the victim of ideology making you want violence against a group. So are they.

You are incapable in your current state of any sensible approach to the situation. So are they.

All you and they can offer is a continuation of the violence until one side or the other is obliterated, cheering each victory and condemning each of their on the way.

You are part of the problem.

Well, if your bleeding heart bullshit of "we are the same" I am glad we have bigger weapons, since if "we are the same" I must want to kill them as much as they want to kill me, you must also want to kill them you westerner you, since you are the opposite of them with your lottery win on life.

So I am thankfull for the bigger and better weapons we have, as this means the better way of life can continue, a life and society that is actually progressing since its inception. Israel has progressed more socially in the last 60 years than the Arabs have in the last thousand.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Israel cannot _ever_ claim the moral high ground in my eyes. Not as long as they have killed orders of magnitude more civilians. I don't care who they are "targeting".
 

magreen

Golden Member
Dec 27, 2006
1,309
1
81
That's because you're incapable of moral reasoning. Shall Israel stand idly by and let its civilians be terrorized and killed and wounded on a routine basis by Hamas and other Islamist terror groups? The relatively low number of Israeli deaths is due to the extremely effective Israeli counter-terrorism measures, not because of any lack of trying on the Palestinians' part. Israel foils hundreds, if not thousands, of attempted terrorist attacks every year.

You cannot judge a moral issue by the plain number of deaths on each side. If one side is clearly practicing self-defense of its civilians while the other is deliberately targetting civilians, which is clearly the case here, then once negotiations have failed, which they have, then it doesn't matter how lopsided the numbers of dead are -- the side practicing self-defense, in this case Israel, is in the right.

Many moral midgets in this thread would do well to attempt to absorb this argument I'm making.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Craig234


Missing a K?

If I'm not mistaken, the KKK is against the jewish folks. I fully support the jewish folk bombing the hell out of those Palestinians.

Try again dingle berry.

You missed the poit. The point is that your attitude towards the Palastenians resembles the attitude of a certain organization towards blacks some time ago.

The KKK would have a position on Palestenians a lot closer to yours than to mine.

The point was a reference to the broader issue of one group preaching hate and violence towards another, not the smaller specific topic about Israeli policy.

Dingle Berry is the nicest insult in a while though, I won't object now.

Perhaps I shouldn't mix kidding with the more serious points. Seriously, your views have flaws ranging from oversimplicity - to be generous - to dehumanization.

You are the counterpart, in fact, to the peope you hate. You are the victim of ideology making you want violence against a group. So are they.

You are incapable in your current state of any sensible approach to the situation. So are they.

All you and they can offer is a continuation of the violence until one side or the other is obliterated, cheering each victory and condemning each of their on the way.

You are part of the problem.

Answer the damn question I posed in my first statement.

"If both sides stopped their aggressions in a cease fire, who would be the first ones to break that cease fire?"

I know you know the answer but because you rather gas the jewish folks, you won't ever admit the answer. Its ok, your holocaustic views are what make you what you are.

And how am I part of the problem. I have nothing to do with either sides, I live half way around the world from them. Hell, even with your views, I wouldn't blame you for their acts of killing innocent jewish folks.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Mani
Israel cannot _ever_ claim the moral high ground in my eyes. Not as long as they have killed orders of magnitude more civilians. I don't care who they are "targeting".
Then I guess we never had the high ground in WW 2 huh??

I would guess that we killed more civilian Japanese than they killed American civilians, same with Germany as well.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.
How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.
That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Fucken idiots. I wish Israel would just carpet bomb the whole area with pig blood impeded (thus no heaven) shrapnel if they are going to make a moral equivalence like that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Craig234


Missing a K?

If I'm not mistaken, the KKK is against the jewish folks. I fully support the jewish folk bombing the hell out of those Palestinians.

Try again dingle berry.

You missed the poit. The point is that your attitude towards the Palastenians resembles the attitude of a certain organization towards blacks some time ago.

The KKK would have a position on Palestenians a lot closer to yours than to mine.

The point was a reference to the broader issue of one group preaching hate and violence towards another, not the smaller specific topic about Israeli policy.

Dingle Berry is the nicest insult in a while though, I won't object now.

Perhaps I shouldn't mix kidding with the more serious points. Seriously, your views have flaws ranging from oversimplicity - to be generous - to dehumanization.

You are the counterpart, in fact, to the peope you hate. You are the victim of ideology making you want violence against a group. So are they.

You are incapable in your current state of any sensible approach to the situation. So are they.

All you and they can offer is a continuation of the violence until one side or the other is obliterated, cheering each victory and condemning each of their on the way.

You are part of the problem.

Well, if your bleeding heart bullshit of "we are the same" I am glad we have bigger weapons, since if "we are the same" I must want to kill them as much as they want to kill me, you must also want to kill them you westerner you, since you are the opposite of them with your lottery win on life.

So I am thankfull for the bigger and better weapons we have, as this means the better way of life can continue, a life and society that is actually progressing since its inception. Israel has progressed more socially in the last 60 years than the Arabs have in the last thousand.

You don't understand crap about why the civilizations progress or don't; and you don't have any morality to have any concern for them, IMO.

You speak as no more than a thug glad you are on the 'stronger side that gets more'.

It's a hell of a lot better to be on the stornger side, but that's not enough. The right approach is for a win for all, not a selfish approach. I'm wasting my breath with you.

You say 'bleeding heart' like it' s abad thing, representing the fool who has a false sense of rightness that you don't fall for any of that mushy 'social justice' stuff.

You are the problem too.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.
How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.
That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Palehorse, your pathetic little math leaves out all kinds of relevant factors such as the relative strength of the two sides.

I would bet a lot of money that if you were in their shoes, you would be explaining why you are right to target civlians in the face of absurdly overwhelming power.

You have never been in that situation, being a citzen of a society under the thumb of a vastly overwhelming force. You have not mentally adjusted to the differences.

You instead offer the pathetic little match as a rationalization, which in its selectivity lets you come out justified for your position, by ignoring so much of the picture.

That's easy to do when you don't give a crap about the other side. People have always been able to do that. The Jews did it with their slaves, the Egyptians with theirs, the Romans with theirs. The Japanese did it with every country they occupied. We did it with the Native Americans, as did Columbus, who enslaved them to search for gold and killed off 90% of the millions of them within 30 years of arriving. There was one guy there who wrote about the atrocities, but nearly everyone saw it as just fine.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: KK
Answer the damn question I posed in my first statement.

"If both sides stopped their aggressions in a cease fire, who would be the first ones to break that cease fire?"

There's a hell of alot more to the issue than a cease fire. Now that things are where they are, the two sides are both going to have to make adjustments to co-exist.

For all I care, make the whole area a new UN-run country with access and freedoms for all - this Hatfield McCoy ongoing feud and violence is wrong.


I know you know the answer but because you rather gas the jewish folks

What the hell? If that's not the biggest ass statement of the last year I don't know what is. I'd hope pretty much everyone will condemn you for it. End of discussion for your offense.
 

NoShangriLa

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2006
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.
How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.
That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: magreen
Many moral midgets in this thread.

Look in the mirror for that.

All you do si a selective recounting of the history to justify one side.

The McCoys could make a great case against the Hatfieldds and vice versa. That's not going to help.

It's likely what will help won't be done because too many people think they gain by continuing the conflict.

As long as your only understanding of options for peace is for one side to agree to the other's demands, you are going to have to keep defending the violence, not end it.

The Israelies are currently approaching an election and the candidates are each running to the right, unfortuntely. The assassination of Yithak Rabin has had a long harmful effect.

At least we have Obama as a slight improvement, and we'll see if in his spare time from the one or two other things going on he can come up with something that helps.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

But see that wasn't our intent! You see if we intended to kill all those people we would be monster but since our direct actions caused those deaths but we didn't want to do it...you know.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Craig234


Missing a K?

If I'm not mistaken, the KKK is against the jewish folks. I fully support the jewish folk bombing the hell out of those Palestinians.

Try again dingle berry.

You missed the poit. The point is that your attitude towards the Palastenians resembles the attitude of a certain organization towards blacks some time ago.

The KKK would have a position on Palestenians a lot closer to yours than to mine.

The point was a reference to the broader issue of one group preaching hate and violence towards another, not the smaller specific topic about Israeli policy.

Dingle Berry is the nicest insult in a while though, I won't object now.

Perhaps I shouldn't mix kidding with the more serious points. Seriously, your views have flaws ranging from oversimplicity - to be generous - to dehumanization.

You are the counterpart, in fact, to the peope you hate. You are the victim of ideology making you want violence against a group. So are they.

You are incapable in your current state of any sensible approach to the situation. So are they.

All you and they can offer is a continuation of the violence until one side or the other is obliterated, cheering each victory and condemning each of their on the way.

You are part of the problem.

Well, if your bleeding heart bullshit of "we are the same" I am glad we have bigger weapons, since if "we are the same" I must want to kill them as much as they want to kill me, you must also want to kill them you westerner you, since you are the opposite of them with your lottery win on life.

So I am thankfull for the bigger and better weapons we have, as this means the better way of life can continue, a life and society that is actually progressing since its inception. Israel has progressed more socially in the last 60 years than the Arabs have in the last thousand.

You don't understand crap about why the civilizations progress or don't; and you don't have any morality to have any concern for them, IMO.

You speak as no more than a thug glad you are on the 'stronger side that gets more'.

It's a hell of a lot better to be on the stornger side, but that's not enough. The right approach is for a win for all, not a selfish approach. I'm wasting my breath with you.

You say 'bleeding heart' like it' s abad thing, representing the fool who has a false sense of rightness that you don't fall for any of that mushy 'social justice' stuff.

You are the problem too.

A problem? For the people against my beliefs perhaps. At least if it happened I would go down fighting for what I believe in, whereas you would probally get on your knees and take whatever coming for fear of offending the people trying to kill you.

Which is what you are asking Israel to do.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: RichardE

A problem? For the people against my beliefs perhaps. At least if it happened I would go down fighting for what I believe in, whereas you would probally get on your knees and take whatever coming for fear of offending the people trying to kill you.

Which is what you are asking Israel to do.

When you have nothing to argue, you turn to lies and misrepresentations, making up 'what I'd probably do' and what you would oh so heroically do and straw men.

Did I say I'm wasting my breath?

Oh ya, I did.

Oh by the way, 'going down fighiting for what you believe in' is not nearly a good enough filter. That can include the teenager who 'believes' in his idiotic street gang, too.

There are way too many people killing others for the evil of misguided 'what they believe in', far beyond those who actually have a decent reason.

But ideology is powerful.

And I'm wasting my breath on you, IMO.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: palehorse
That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Palehorse, your pathetic little math leaves out all kinds of relevant factors such as the relative strength of the two sides.

I would bet a lot of money that if you were in their shoes, you would be explaining why you are right to target civlians in the face of absurdly overwhelming power.

You have never been in that situation, being a citzen of a society under the thumb of a vastly overwhelming force. You have not mentally adjusted to the differences.

You instead offer the pathetic little match as a rationalization, which in its selectivity lets you come out justified for your position, by ignoring so much of the picture.

That's easy to do when you don't give a crap about the other side. People have always been able to do that. The Jews did it with their slaves, the Egyptians with theirs, the Romans with theirs. The Japanese did it with every country they occupied. We did it with the Native Americans, as did Columbus, who enslaved them to search for gold and killed off 90% of the millions of them within 30 years of arriving. There was one guy there who wrote about the atrocities, but nearly everyone saw it as just fine.
My rebuttal can be summed up with one simple fact: I believe that intentionally targeting and murdering innocent civilians is evil in its purest form; regardless of the circumstances.

The "relative strength of the two sides" is a total non-factor when discussing the morality of a force's actions.

There is simply no excuse for it -- none -- regardless of your lame and futile attempts to walk a mile in their shoes. The fact that you are able to somehow justify such heinous crimes is itself reprehensible...

intent is everything.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KK
Answer the damn question I posed in my first statement.

"If both sides stopped their aggressions in a cease fire, who would be the first ones to break that cease fire?"

There's a hell of alot more to the issue than a cease fire. Now that things are where they are, the two sides are both going to have to make adjustments to co-exist.

For all I care, make the whole area a new UN-run country with access and freedoms for all - this Hatfield McCoy ongoing feud and violence is wrong.

So you won't answer it. surprise surprise

I know you know the answer but because you rather gas the jewish folks

What the hell? If that's not the biggest ass statement of the last year I don't know what is. I'd hope pretty much everyone will condemn you for it. End of discussion for your offense.

Biggest ass statement, hardly. I've had much better ones. "missing a K" is alright though?

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: RichardE

A problem? For the people against my beliefs perhaps. At least if it happened I would go down fighting for what I believe in, whereas you would probally get on your knees and take whatever coming for fear of offending the people trying to kill you.

Which is what you are asking Israel to do.

When you have nothing to argue, you turn to lies and misrepresentations, making up 'what I'd probably do' and what you would oh so heroically do and straw men.

Did I say I'm wasting my breath?

Oh ya, I did.

Oh by the way, 'going down fighiting for what you believe in' is not nearly a good enough filter. That can include the teenager who 'believes' in his idiotic street gang, too.

There are way too many people killing others for the evil of misguided 'what they believe in', far beyond those who actually have a decent reason.

But ideology is powerful.

And I'm wasting my breath on you, IMO.

:laugh:

I am making deductions about you based on your words as you do about me, get off your pedestal little man, your high morals don't save you all the time. How about you answer the question who would break the truce first?

Than answer the question of whether you think Israel should continue to let rockets fly into its land ensuring that over a million people live in daily fear, and if they shouldn't let rockets fly into there land, how about you come up with some non-violent solution since you obviously understand the Palestinian people better than anyone.

You are pathetic, a big person on words and what is morally right, by like most utopian academics the bullshit theories you sprout have no real world application. They sound good in papers and books and speeches and are impossible to implement.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: palehorse
My rebuttal can be summed up with one simple fact: I believe that intentionally targeting and murdering innocent civilians is evil in its purest form; regardless of the circumstances.

The "relative strength of the two sides" is a total non-factor when discussing the morality of a force's actions.

There is simply no excuse for it -- none -- regardless of your lame and futile attempts to walk a mile in their shoes. The fact that you are able to somehow justify such heinous crimes is itself reprehensible...

There's a lot more to discuss on the topic, the many holes in your position, but one area to note is how you carve out exception after exception for the civilians we kill.

Tell me, Palehorse, how many civilian farmers, women and children were killed by our various attacks in Vietnam? How thin are you trying to split a har to proclaim those the noble heroic acts of our nation and contrast them to the utter evil of the weak forces who bomb the civilian population of the far more powerful oppressor?

BTW, I haven't condoned the civilian violence - I've described it and pointed out your lack of recognition of your own wrongs.

If I say that someone who kills a civilian and why has just as good or better justification than you do in some situation you defend killing a civilian, that doesn't mean I necessarily condone either one. It means I'm attacking your claim of moral superiority for the violence your're advocating (and helping). I'm about peace. You're about rationalizing.

It might take us a thousand interactions to get past all your excuses and justifications and selectivity and biases and dehumanizations and other tools of the trade of killing.

But the result is to identify you as justifying wrongful violence whether the other side has its own wrongs or not.

We need to grow out of just defending war and grow into how to fight for a just situation for both sides that removes the need for war, not the excusing more war you fight for.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.
How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq andAfghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.
That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Palehorse, your pathetic little math leaves out all kinds of relevant factors such as the relative strength of the two sides.

I would bet a lot of money that if you were in their shoes, you would be explaining why you are right to target civlians in the face of absurdly overwhelming power.

You have never been in that situation, being a citzen of a society under the thumb of a vastly overwhelming force. You have not mentally adjusted to the differences.

You instead offer the pathetic little match as a rationalization, which in its selectivity lets you come out justified for your position, by ignoring so much of the picture.

That's easy to do when you don't give a crap about the other side. People have always been able to do that. The Jews did it with their slaves, the Egyptians with theirs, the Romans with theirs. The Japanese did it with every country they occupied. We did it with the Native Americans, as did Columbus, who enslaved them to search for gold and killed off 90% of the millions of them within 30 years of arriving. There was one guy there who wrote about the atrocities, but nearly everyone saw it as just fine.

What a joke!

You want to reverse the situation Ok let's do that!

Say there were 22 Jewish states, and only one tiny Arab state.

And in all those 22 Jewish states every Arab group was denied anything like equality but instead relgated to second class Dhimmi status or outright expelled for centuries.

And in all those 22 Jewish states they also possessed fantastic oil reserves and thus wealth and the one tiny Arab state possessed nothing but the intelligence of its people. Not even an ounce of water which is housed in Gaza a hostile Jewish territory. Funded and supported by the rich Jews.

And those 22 Jewish states have over 14,000,000 square miles of territory, and the one tiny Arab state has less than 1/1,000th of that, or about 10,0000 square miles.

Those 22 Jewish states were possessed by an ideology requiring them to move heaven and earth in order to eradicate that one tiny Arab state.

And those those 22 Jewish states were intent on rewriting, or destroying, the history of those Arabs in their one tiny "Arab" state who lived there for 3000+ years prior, because the 1350 years of Judism takes presidence.

Those same Jews had long ago conquered that little area, running out the Arabs, and the desperate Arabs 'escaped' to Europe where they were virtually wiped out for being 'not quite white'

After realizing their evil deeds, those Europeans, said the Arabs had right to establish the Arab National Home, a tiny fraction of what they had before, but the 22 Jewish states were having no part of that.

The wars raged to eradicate those Arabs once and for all - at first all the 22 nations of Jews, with their fabulous wealth and land- ganged up on the recently eradicated Arabs, but later defined it as a David and Goliath scenario, with Jewish shock troops - all for western consumption.

and on and on...

You need to think clearly about how I have taken your invited hypothetical and ask yourself if you wish to remain a moral idiot, or care to embrace what is just, what is right.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KK
Answer the damn question I posed in my first statement.

"If both sides stopped their aggressions in a cease fire, who would be the first ones to break that cease fire?"

There's a hell of alot more to the issue than a cease fire. Now that things are where they are, the two sides are both going to have to make adjustments to co-exist.

For all I care, make the whole area a new UN-run country with access and freedoms for all - this Hatfield McCoy ongoing feud and violence is wrong.

So you won't answer it. surprise surprise

It's as if we're discussing whether OJ murdered his wife and all you can harp on is whether she cheated on him and demand an answer. It's not the point. I answered that.

Sometimes Israael breaks them, sometimes the Palestenians break them, it doesn't matter that much other than for you to try to get another hateful stereotyping snipe in to support your prejudice, just like racists used to latch onto any wrongdoing by blacks to justify segregation. You are out for hate and violence.

I know you know the answer but because you rather gas the jewish folks

What the hell? If that's not the biggest ass statement of the last year I don't know what is. I'd hope pretty much everyone will condemn you for it. End of discussion for your offense.

Biggest ass statement, hardly. I've had much better ones. "missing a K" is alright though?

You're not getting any more responses because of the behavior. My comment *would* be an ass comment if it was not in response to something you said that made it fit.

...those Palestinian idiots. I say bomb them, and bomb them good.

You removed any ass aspect to my comment. I said nothing of the sort.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Zebo

What a joke!

You want to reverse the situation Ok let's do that!

Say there were 22 Jewish states, and only one tiny Arab state.

And in all those 22 Jewish states every Arab group was denied anything like equality but instead relgated to second class Dhimmi status or outright expelled for centuries.

And in all those 22 Jewish states they also possessed fantastic oil reserves and thus wealth and the one tiny Arab state possessed nothing but the intelligence of its people. Not even an ounce of water which is housed in Gaza a hostile Jewish territory. Funded and supported by the rich Jews.

And those 22 Jewish states have over 14,000,000 square miles of territory, and the one tiny Arab state has less than 1/1,000th of that, or about 10,0000 square miles.

Those 22 Jewish states were possessed by an ideology requiring them to move heaven and earth in order to eradicate that one tiny Arab state.

And those those 22 Jewish states were intent on rewriting, or destroying, the history of those Arabs in their one tiny "Arab" state who lived there for 3000+ years prior, because the 1350 years of Judism takes presidence.

Those same Jews had long ago conquered that little area, running out the Arabs, and the desperate Arabs 'escaped' to Europe where they were virtually wiped out for being 'not quite white'

After realizing their evil deeds, those Europeans, said the Arabs had right to establish the Arab National Home, a tiny fraction of what they had before, but the 22 Jewish states were having no part of that.

The wars raged to eradicate those Arabs once and for all - at first all the 22 nations of Jews, with their fabulous wealth and land- ganged up on the recently eradicated Arabs, but later defined it as a David and Goliath scenario, with Jewish shock troops - all for western consumption.

and on and on...

You need to think clearly about how I have taken your invited hypothetical and ask yourself if you wish to remain a moral idiot, or care to embrace what is just, what is right.

You need to learn a little history of the region. You leave out the century of the west building up the radical religious forces to create opposition to weaken the region for exploitation. You left out the history of the west in instaling and maintaining tyrannical regimes who served the interest of the west. You left our the repression and torture and terrible things the west empowered by those arrangements. You left out the role of Israel not just as a Jewish state but as the most militarily powerful nation in the region as a proxy state for the west to a large though not unlimited extent. You left out the role of the west in a hell of a lot of things in the region that are a key part of the story.

Not the story you want to tell yourself at bedtime so that you feel you are oh so right, and not the imaginary straw man story you imaging the other side telling that's totally anti-Israel, but the real story, apart from either 'party line', about the real and complex history and the challenges that no one in power cares much about, because they're pursuing someone's interest, not peace and justice.
 

NoShangriLa

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2006
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

But see that wasn't our intent! You see if we intended to kill all those people we would be monster but since our direct actions caused those deaths but we didn't want to do it...you know.
It is hard for me to believe that Western forces go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties after historic reviews on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden.

IMHO, we are capable of being the monsters that we try to disassociates with, and it is likely that we are the evil villain with out knowing it.