The World must see this

[Corn]

Originally posted by: dahunan
.....waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

Would you like me to get you a tissue?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
"Traditional rules of war" changed in the 1770s when the colonies used snipers, special forces, hit and run tactics, etc.. No more "Gentleman's Rules".

yeah, it is the same saying, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". What the colonists did in the Revolutionary war was EXACTLY what is considered terrorism now. Our forefathers had no problems organizing their resistance in churches, and sniping soldiers in city streets, etc.. The founders of this country fought against a government they had no representation on that still controlled their moves, kinda exactly like what Hamas is doing.

Interesting... I do not recall reading ANY stories of U.S. Revolutionary War fighters attacking innocent civilians or intentionally using them as human shields... care to provide a link?

Who fucking cares.. it doesn't give you the right to murder more innocents.. Eye for an Eye Makes the whole world go blind

Israel takes out eyes at a rate of 200:1?? and then wonders why their neighbors want to kill them

I wish you people would seek immigration to Israel and go live on some of that stolen land and then go to church and pray for thanks for it and thank you for god for the help in killing your neighbors..

What I want to know is:

If terrorists in urban areas in Cuba starting lobbing missiles into Florida, do you think America would just put up with it, because retaliation would unavoidably cost the lives of Cuban civilians? Do you think anti-Israel Americans might have a slightly different perspective on retaliation if American was being attacked?

And what about the U.S. bombing of Japan during WWII? If avoiding civilian deaths is such a big deal, how come the U.S. dropped bombs on Japan with so little regard for the lives of civilians?


Text

The bombing of Tokyo and other cities in Japan during World War II caused widespread destruction and over 200,000 deaths, nearly all civilians.

[T]he nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 80,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000-140,000.

That's 300,000 Japanese civilians killed, and there wasn't even the pretense of trying to minimize civilian deaths.

 

[fallenangel99]

Had soldiers entered the home, the mannequin would have exploded, collapsing the floor and causing the troops to fall into a tunnel, where Hamas men would have tried to abduct them.

That's pretty cool

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Funny thing is that lots of people seem to assume that Israel is the bad guy and that the Palestinians are always innocent victims.

It is disturbing to see how distorted your perspective is:

?Seven in ten Americans (71%) think the United States should take neither side in the conflict. Twenty-one percent think the United States should take Israel?s side and 3 percent think it should take the Palestinians? side.

?Three in five (59%) think Israel is not doing its part well in making efforts to resolve the conflict; 30 percent think it is. A larger 75 percent think the Palestinians are not doing their part well; only 15 percent think they are. Even more?78 percent?think the Arab countries are not doing their part well (12% think they are).

http://www.worldpublicopinion....al_Jul08_countries.pdf

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
While you are certainly adept at repeating such facts, I don't think you comprehend the meaning. Hamas is the chosen government for the Palestinians in Gaza, as simple as that.

If you honestly don't think I understand that, then you have been diluding yourself.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Hamas was formed during the First Intifada I mentioned earlier, after 20 years of Israeli colonization continued to ignore popular Palestinian passive resistance

Passive?

Popular Palestinian passive resistance. The atrocities of a few radicals does nothing to dispute the actions of the majority. Again, if you refuse to understand that, you are only diluding yourself.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I don't hate them (but then, I don't hate anyone in general). I do think Israel has treated this situation wrongly, and should have made something with the colonized territories back then - either give them back as part of peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt, or transfer it to the international community...

The territories have never been rightfully Israel's, Jordan's, or Egypt's to do anything of the sort with. They are Palestinian territories as affirmed by the UN partition plan, and land Palestinians still hold right to after ceding the rest of what Israel conquered beyond those borders at Oslo.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
...or just drive the population away from these territories and annex the area in full. After all, these ARE territories justly conquered from aggressors (Jordan and Egypt), which to the best of my knowledge, stands the test of the international law.

The problem here is of demographics and not territory, and Israeli leaders back then were foolish not to solve it.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting Israeli leaders in 1967 should have displaced Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, just as Israeli leaders in 1948 did in what is Israel now, prior to the Arab nations declaring war on them? "Needs more ethnic clensing!" Surely you don't mean that?

Also, none of what you suggested there has any standing in international law.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
They were just a bunch of peasants misled by their leaders into fighting an horrible war, one that they can't win.

No, they were a buch of people who didn't fight, and a few who did.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Oh, like the CIA and Bin Laden? That was around the same time, too, no? A coincidence?

It certainly has simliarities.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Anyway, everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Many of such manipulations tend to backfire at the manipulator.

The manipulator here help Hamas come to power so as to divide Palestinians while concurring their homeland, and Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank proves that, far from being a mistake, it has served it's purposes quite well.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
While you are certainly adept at repeating such facts, I don't think you comprehend the meaning. Hamas is the chosen government for the Palestinians in Gaza, as simple as that.

If you honestly don't think I understand that, then you have been diluding yourself.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Hamas was formed during the First Intifada I mentioned earlier, after 20 years of Israeli colonization continued to ignore popular Palestinian passive resistance

Passive?

Popular Palestinian passive resistance. The atrocities of a few radicals does nothing to dispute the actions of the majority. Again, if you refuse to understand that, you are only diluding yourself.

Arafat was always the defacto leader of the Palestinians. Choosing a terrorist group as an institution is a statement, to say the least.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
...or just drive the population away from these territories and annex the area in full. After all, these ARE territories justly conquered from aggressors (Jordan and Egypt), which to the best of my knowledge, stands the test of the international law.

The problem here is of demographics and not territory, and Israeli leaders back then were foolish not to solve it.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting Israeli leaders in 1967 should have displaced Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, just as Israeli leaders in 1948 did in what is Israel now, prior to the Arab nations declaring war on them? "Needs more ethnic clensing!" Surely you don't mean that?

Also, none of what you suggested there has any standing in international law.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It could have spared alot of blood on both sides. They would be living in Jordan instead of their sad refugee camps. The Jordanians would surely know how to handle them.

When two populations can't simultaneously coexist on the same patch, you displace one. That's the only solution where no one gets hurt, unless you have a better solution (remember - two populations not willing to coexist, that's the basic assumption).

Unfortunately Israeli leaders of that day never had the foresight, thus leaving this ticking bomb to their successors, who failed to defuse it. Over time, the problem is growing larger and larger.

I illustrated several ways of action. By no means am I saying displacement was the most just or effective or right. It is, however, far better than annexing these lands together with their occupants, for all sides.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Arafat was always the defacto leader of the Palestinians. Choosing a terrorist group as an institution is a statement, to say the least.

You say that as if you don't realize Israelis have elected some of their own terrorists over the years, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir being notable examples.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
When two populations can't simultaneously coexist on the same patch, you displace one.

Only if you insist on taking their patch and colonizing it yourself, like the Nazis did to the Polish. Is that the example you like seeing Israel follow?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Arafat was always the defacto leader of the Palestinians. Choosing a terrorist group as an institution is a statement, to say the least.

You say that as if you don't realize Israelis have elected some of their own terrorists over the years, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir being notable examples.

The Israelis very quickly organized themselves into a state and forcefully ended their terror organization period. Can't see the Palestinians having the maturity to do so themselves.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
When two populations can't simultaneously coexist on the same patch, you displace one.

Only if you insist on taking their patch and colonizing it yourself, like the Nazis did to the Polish. Is that the example you like seeing Israel follow?

I'm sure it has been used throughout history, regardless of the Nazis. Didn't native Indians suffer the same fate? Isn't it more humane than what's going on now?

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dahunan
just fighting injustice with injustice

Like Israel follows all the rules eh?

You are lucky the boogieman Neocons created called Al-Qaeda doesn't help.. right?

Let me treat you like a sewer rat and push you and your family off your land and build walls around you and kill a few innocent neighbors every few months and then tell me you would be just a sweet little neighbor

lol so if I buy your house, you're going to claim I kicked you out of your house and pushed you off your land? fucking ridiculous.

Nobody bought my family's historic home and farmland in Sar'a / ???? / ????. They were kicked out and pushed off their land. Fucking atrocious.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The Israelis very quickly organized themselves into a state and forcefully ended their terror organization period. Can't see the Palestinians having the maturity to do so themselves.

Yet they elected them to lead their nation directly following Israel's capture of Gaza and the West Bank. Those "former terrorists" resumed their goal of colonizing land for Israel, only rather than with the meager means of terrorists, they used the power of a mighty nation to further their terrorist goals.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'm sure it has been used throughout history, regardless of the Nazis. Didn't native Indians suffer the same fate?

Yes, my Native American ancestors were driven from their homeland by colonists.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Isn't it more humane than what's going on now?

It is a lot more inumane than not robbing people of their homeland in the first place.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dahunan
just fighting injustice with injustice

Like Israel follows all the rules eh?

You are lucky the boogieman Neocons created called Al-Qaeda doesn't help.. right?

Let me treat you like a sewer rat and push you and your family off your land and build walls around you and kill a few innocent neighbors every few months and then tell me you would be just a sweet little neighbor

lol so if I buy your house, you're going to claim I kicked you out of your house and pushed you off your land? fucking ridiculous.

Nobody bought my family's historic home and farmland in Sar'a / ???? / ????. They were kicked out and pushed off their land. Fucking atrocious.

And the same holds true for most Palstinian famillies who lived in what is now Israel, here is the land ownership by sub-district shortly before Israeli militias displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians:

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

A catastrophe, as it is know as in the Arab world.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dahunan
just fighting injustice with injustice

Like Israel follows all the rules eh?

You are lucky the boogieman Neocons created called Al-Qaeda doesn't help.. right?

Let me treat you like a sewer rat and push you and your family off your land and build walls around you and kill a few innocent neighbors every few months and then tell me you would be just a sweet little neighbor

lol so if I buy your house, you're going to claim I kicked you out of your house and pushed you off your land? fucking ridiculous.

Nobody bought my family's historic home and farmland in Sar'a / ???? / ????. They were kicked out and pushed off their land. Fucking atrocious.

And the same holds true for most Palstinian famillies who lived in what is now Israel, here is the land ownership by sub-district shortly before Israeli militias displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians:

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

A catastrophe, as it is know as in the Arab world.

Great map. Of course, most posting in this thread are above historical facts and petty things like "maps."

I'd like to remind most who don't know, under both Ottoman and Jordanian law, "state/public land" also included farm land which civilians were given permanent leases on provided that they planted some tiny amount (literally like one family's worth) of crops there. This practice was observed under British colonial rule as well. This was the source of livelihood for my family, like many others, who were farmers for many generations.

Israel then used this "state land" to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

 

[kylebisme]

Much of the West Bank settlements are actually on land private owned by Palestinians:

A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'

More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time.

The settlements in question, which include Ariel, Kiryat Arba and Efrat, have tens of thousands of residents, and many have existed for decades. A security source termed this a "difficult statistic" that is liable to cause trouble for Israel both in Washington and its own courts.

The defense establishment has consistently refused to publish this information, and a month ago, the Defense Ministry told a court that its publication would "damage the state's security and foreign relations." Peace Now, which discovered the data, said it proves that most of the settlements are illegal even under Israeli law, and termed the attempt to hide the information a "blow to democracy."
....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Traditional rules of war" changed in the 1770s when the colonies used snipers, special forces, hit and run tactics, etc.. No more "Gentleman's Rules".

You've been watching too many Mel Gibson movies...we didn't win a decisive battle during the Revolutionary War until European officers primarily from Germany and France taught American colonials how to drill and fight in disciplined formations. The rifles of the time period were largely innacurate and ineffective to achieve attrition by sniper fire...colonials were not popping out from behind trees and defeating the Brits with hit and run attacks...it was all mass army tactics.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

You've been watching too many Mel Gibson movies...we didn't win...

You've misunderstood his point; he didn't suggest that is how "we" won, but rather that is what "we" used when that was all "we" had.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

The thing is, you retard

Great argjewment. I concede.

LOL, another racist idiot exposes himself and we all get to point and laugh at his 1 inch long man-gina. This is classic.

I think it's classic as well.