Here they do good.
But why do they continue to build settlements? Just knock it off and secure the borders you have now! Jeez!
But why do they continue to build settlements? Just knock it off and secure the borders you have now! Jeez!
What's wrong with Israelis???
- Thread starter miguel
- Start date
That's good? Looks like they were planning on killing some settlers. It's a shame they were caught. I have no mercy or pity for the settlers.
That would make you a minority in a world where intentional killings of innocent people are condemned. But of course, you have the right to your opinion.
yeha, i always wondered why they continue to try and build settlements as well, they KNOW that the Palestineans are going to attack and kill them...
Too bad for the baby, not their fault their dumb parents were living on land that doesn't belong to them. I have no pity for a family who raises children in settlements either.
Exatcly, that is the settler's fault. They have a choice whether to be there or not. Settlers are legit targets IMO, innocents within Israel are not. It's a shame the child died, but that is a chance the parents knew they were taking when they moved onto stolen land. Only BrooHoo is capable of defending settlers, it should be fun to see him do it.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,730
- 16
- 81
Living on someone else's land (which they are not doing anyway) is not a reason to suffer a violent death.
(For the record, I am against most of the settlements.)
(For the record, I am against most of the settlements.)
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
its amazing how flipant you are about targeted attacks against children.
no people that choose to persue political ends through violent inhumane means deserve a civilized hearing.
by your barbaric standards i wonder what revenge the parents would be entitled to.
just goes to show how little you really think the value of life is.
And how do you figure that they are not living on someone elses land? And yes, if you steal someone's land they have a right to shoot you, it's called trespass and even in America, you can get capped for tresspassing on someone's land. Of couse the situation is a little more complitcated over there, but you get the point. And BrooHoo wants it every which way. Palestinians are to just stand back in all instances and watch their land being taken away. If they defend their land, they are terrorists, if they fight back against people who build houses on stolen territory they are terrorists. Unless they act like Gandhi and let Israel walk all over them they are terrorists. God why does anyone bother trying to reason with him?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
considering you can't help but call me names in every post, its a wonder why anyone bothers to listen to someone like you.
anyways, time and time again the palestinians chose war and lost, and what they reaped was this. a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.
egypt and jordan never legally owned the land, certainly not the palestinians. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.
and don't forget, when it was under jordan from 1949-67 that jews were forbidden to live in the west bank. and all during this time, there still was no peace.
no matter your grievance, when you choose to use immoral means, you deserve nothing but scorn.
anyways, time and time again the palestinians chose war and lost, and what they reaped was this. a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.
egypt and jordan never legally owned the land, certainly not the palestinians. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.
and don't forget, when it was under jordan from 1949-67 that jews were forbidden to live in the west bank. and all during this time, there still was no peace.
no matter your grievance, when you choose to use immoral means, you deserve nothing but scorn.
it's no use dealing with the settlers
they think they are "god's chosen people"
there's no way to reason with that sort of mentality
they think they are "god's chosen people"
there's no way to reason with that sort of mentality
Being that I started this thread, I guess I should post to it. I agree with what you wrote above, brown, but what others posted about it being OK to kill them is ridiculous and ignorant.
It's never ok to kill anyone and that is not what I posted or implied. I just said that them putting themselves in a place where they have no right to be, that is on stolen land, makes them legitamate targets. It's synonymous to people acting as human shields for Saddam. They are civilians, yes, but they have chosen to put themselves in danger just as they could have chosen to be somewhere else out of danger instead. People in Israel and in the Palestinian territory don't have that luxury, they are where they are, settlers choose to be where they are. And I blame those scum settlers for the deaths of their children, putting their own flesh and blood's life at risk to prove some distorted point, they are no better than the parents of suicide bombers IMO.
If israel doesn't want thier civilians target maybe they should stop using "civilians" to occupy their stolen land.
Interesting argument. That holds that if terrorists are hiding in a school building full of children, the US can fire a cruise missle into that building and it would have your thumbs up?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
you could say that about 9/11. the grievances of the terrorists go far beyond any reasonable solution. there was terrorism before a single settlement was built, its a false arguement.
and nothing justifies terrorism against civilians, especially not people living on uninabited land. don't even pretend that every scrap of the west band was occupied by people, its simply not that crowded. not to mention it was land lost in war.
and by your arguement i wonder what revenge the israelis are justified to use after being hit by terrorism, since there are no apparent moral bounds... the fact is this, the palestinians are choosing to use highly immoral means to seek political gains, they don't deserve to be coddled.
and nothing justifies terrorism against civilians, especially not people living on uninabited land. don't even pretend that every scrap of the west band was occupied by people, its simply not that crowded. not to mention it was land lost in war.
and by your arguement i wonder what revenge the israelis are justified to use after being hit by terrorism, since there are no apparent moral bounds... the fact is this, the palestinians are choosing to use highly immoral means to seek political gains, they don't deserve to be coddled.
No but they should raid the school and kill the terrorist that are occupying the school. How does that relate to the problem in isreal?
You wrote that israel should stop using civilians to occupy stolen land. By using them, they become valid targets.
So are you implying that terrorists in schools are not valid targets? So in your example the terrorist are the settlers and the school/childern are the people displaced by the settlers then who the heck is the US and which side are they on?
Or where you just trying to get a save the childern and terroist in the same post.
OK, let me try that again. I admit it wasn't very clear. Terrorists in schools are valid targets. The children are not. You suggested that civilians are valid targets because they set up a settlement in somebody else's land. I'm challenging your notion that civilians are valid targets because of that. I used the school building example (probably not the best example, come to think of it) to try and show that the civilians are NEVER valid targets, regardless of the result.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 19K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter