Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

why are the thousands of terrorists in palestine aren't judged?

to voilentAJ
your right! lets say that the movie "delta force" was anti jewish,they WILL label it "anti-Semitic",and its already antisemitic to arabs due that we're both from the same race.

to satanbrain
please tell me,how many deaths are in gaza and how many in jerusalem and anywhere else.

At 1/9/10 05:15 AM, assassin1337 wrote: to satanbrain
please tell me,how many deaths are in gaza and how many in jerusalem and anywhere else.

gaza: 75% terrorists 25% civilians, jerusalem: who care.

At 1/8/10 04:36 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 1/8/10 09:55 AM, bcdemon wrote: If you had bothered to check out the information provided you would have seen that they are being built in Arab neighborhoods in the West Bank, which goes against the UN resolutions and the 2002 Roadmap for Peace about more settlement construction.

I was not disputing that.

Oh I'm pretty sure you were.

Simply making the point that you kind of people, when it's a country you're not totally against in every aspect for no reason (as you are with Israel), act like defying a UN resolution is no big deal most of the time.

Really, and which country did I let off the hook for defying UN Resolutions?

At 1/8/10 11:50 PM, satanbrain wrote: why are the thousands of terrorists in palestine aren't judged?

People condemn their actions on a regular basis.
Besides, if the world can turn a blind eye to what the Israelis do (wall people in, steal fertile lands, regulate and refuse the flow of needed foods and supplies, tear down homes at will, decimate cities, kill thousands upon thousands of Arabs, and commit war crimes) then why shouldn't they turn a blind what some pissed off Arabs do (launch a few unguided rockets that might kill 1 or 2 people).

At 1/9/10 08:28 AM, bcdemon wrote:

why shouldn't they turn a blind what some pissed off Arabs do (launch a few unguided rockets that might kill 1 or 2 people).

we protect our people. we don't tell them to stand at the top of a building when they see a rocket coming, we do our best to not harm innocent. but citizens letting terrorists shoot from their own homes? taking their children as a human shields? learn at kindergartens and school where ammo and mines are hidden? WTF?!

At 1/9/10 12:59 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 1/9/10 08:28 AM, bcdemon wrote:

why shouldn't they turn a blind what some pissed off Arabs do (launch a few unguided rockets that might kill 1 or 2 people).

we protect our people. we don't tell them to stand at the top of a building when they see a rocket coming, we do our best to not harm innocent. but citizens letting terrorists shoot from their own homes? taking their children as a human shields? learn at kindergartens and school where ammo and mines are hidden? WTF?!

There not necessarily a organized army which can take on the Israeli army, obviously they don't have a better choice.

At 1/9/10 05:59 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 1/9/10 05:15 AM, assassin1337 wrote: to satanbrain
please tell me,how many deaths are in gaza and how many in jerusalem and anywhere else.

gaza: 75% terrorists 25% civilians, jerusalem: who care.

that means there are PEOPLE getting killed more than hamas members,women,children,etc

At 1/9/10 01:20 PM, Warforger wrote: obviously they don't have a better choice.

And so do us...

At 1/10/10 09:43 AM, assassin1337 wrote: that means there are PEOPLE getting killed more than hamas members,women,children,etc

isn't that how the war against terrorism work?

At 1/10/10 11:02 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 1/10/10 09:43 AM, assassin1337 wrote: that means there are PEOPLE getting killed more than hamas members,women,children,etc

isn't that how the war against terrorism work?

Did you understand what he said? The War On Terrorism is supposed to destroy terrorist organizations, not to kill innocents.

At 1/9/10 01:20 PM, Warforger wrote: There not necessarily a organized army which can take on the Israeli army, obviously they don't have a better choice.

In which case they should either limit themselves exclusively to diplomacy or just accept it. Look at all the anti-Israeli sentiment already. Don't you think if the Palestinians ceased their attacks their support would be substantially greater? When you resort to terrorism, it doesn't matter how legitimate your cause may be. Simply crossing that boundary condemns your group to failure.

If the British government is using a Universal Jurisdiction principle, then Israel has no cause to complain. It's not just Israel being subject to it. It applies to everyone, and there's no reason why Israel should be exempt if certain actions that certain government figures have made qualify.

Honestly, I'm getting sick of the view that the Israeli state is above criticism. In the U.S., you can't even reasonably expect to hold office in virtually the whole country if your view happens to be sympathetic with the Palestinians. It took the Israeli bombing of Lebanon to finally get substantial media criticism against Israeli actions. Honestly, Israel as a state appears paranoid. It has its reasons, of course, but they tend to over-react, in my opinion.

Honestly, as long as Palestinians are being displaced, there won't be any peace in the Middle East.

At 1/11/10 09:43 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Honestly, as long as Palestinians are being displaced, there won't be any peace in the Middle East.

there are jews from arab countries that were being displaced (and persecuted to death) as well.

At 1/10/10 04:12 PM, Warforger wrote: Did you understand what he said? The War On Terrorism is supposed to destroy terrorist organizations, not to kill innocents.

but when they hiding in civilian buildings, what can we do? this is not war against scattered terrorist organizations, this is war against close cooperation of 'innocent' and 'guilty'.

At 1/12/10 02:38 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 1/11/10 09:43 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Honestly, as long as Palestinians are being displaced, there won't be any peace in the Middle East.

there are jews from arab countries that were being displaced (and persecuted to death) as well.

I know, but what I meant was that the conflict will continue because both sides will continue to retaliate with violence. Just because I have some sympathy for Palestinians doesn't mean I don't think that they should be able to justify terrorist acts. I'm saying that history has shown that the numerous attempts at peace have all failed and that violence has been nearly constant and shows no real signs of stopping as long as things remain the way they are now. Both sides are predisposed to resorting to violent acts.

At 1/12/10 08:54 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 1/12/10 02:38 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 1/11/10 09:43 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Honestly, as long as Palestinians are being displaced, there won't be any peace in the Middle East.

there are jews from arab countries that were being displaced (and persecuted to death) as well.

I know, but what I meant was that the conflict will continue because both sides will continue to retaliate with violence. Just because I have some sympathy for Palestinians doesn't mean I don't think that they should be able to justify terrorist acts. I'm saying that history has shown that the numerous attempts at peace have all failed and that violence has been nearly constant and shows no real signs of stopping as long as things remain the way they are now. Both sides are predisposed to resorting to violent acts.

you know that we tried our best do not use violence, Separation Plan - we're out of gaza. what we got? rockets. we tried to negotiate and they smuggling meantime. they don't want a solution. Anyway WE were here first so they can't use the excuse its conquered.

At 1/13/10 12:28 AM, satanbrain wrote:

Anyway WE were here first so they can't use the excuse its conquered.

That was fucking AGES ago, and in the time before Israel was established after WWII, the Middle East was FAR more peaceful. How many people have died because of the establishment of Israel? I'm not saying Israel should be dissolved, since that would displace even more people, and even then, there;s no telling whether the violence would stop or not.

At 1/13/10 01:07 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 1/13/10 12:28 AM, satanbrain wrote:

Anyway WE were here first so they can't use the excuse its conquered.

That was fucking AGES ago, and in the time before Israel was established after WWII, the Middle East was FAR more peaceful. How many people have died because of the establishment of Israel? I'm not saying Israel should be dissolved, since that would displace even more people, and even then, there;s no telling whether the violence would stop or not.

At the same time, most of the Middle East was owned by European powers, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Afghanistan, the Stans up in Russia, and North Africa, after WWII this was quickly stopped being the case up until the 70's when the last of the countries lost the British protection.

In essence this was peaceful in the sense that a world owned by a dictater is peaceful, and it wasn't that peaceful, the conflict started before the formation of Israel, where it was the Zionists (they had been migrating since the 1800's), the Palestinians AND the British against each other, thats after WWI, before that it was the killing of Jews by the Ottoman empire where the Palestinians joined in, as happened in others, most likely because they wanted to not be the next to be killed, so it wasn't that peaceful.

At 1/13/10 01:07 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 1/13/10 12:28 AM, satanbrain wrote:

Anyway WE were here first so they can't use the excuse its conquered.

That was fucking AGES ago, and in the time before Israel was established after WWII, the Middle East was FAR more peaceful. How many people have died because of the establishment of Israel? I'm not saying Israel should be dissolved, since that would displace even more people, and even then, there;s no telling whether the violence would stop or not.

agreed,we allowed them in because we were the ONLY ones to let them in palestine,but it was taken full advantage of Sharon to invade the country

As a resident and citizen of Israel, including the bombed areas, I believe I should have some sort of first hand in what has seemingly become a monotonous agreement against Israel.

Well atleast you didn't call anyone an anti-semite, which I've been hearing a lot lately loll.

Israel has no need to defend itself; ongoing attacks for 8 years on innocent civilians in Israel's territory from the various terrorist organizations who claim ownership of those parts of Israel they try and corrupt, Israel finally did the right thing, and attacked focused targets within the Gaza strip in order to counter the missiles fired at the South and North of Israel. Any civilian casualties, or activists under the clever guise of civilians are unfortunately the collateral damage of War, gentlemen.

You can call it an unfortunate side effect of war, or you can call it war crimes. What about the Israeli use of white phosphorus in civilian areas? The attack on the UN school?

I didn't hear you complaining when the fine citizens of German cities ate lead from British bombs and it was merely the side effect of going to war.

Well I can't say I was around then, but I certainly don't agree with it.

And as with any war, some casualties are not needed, but the same could be said at the pointless and relentless attacks by the radical Muslims in the area (Hamas, Hezbollah).

And believe me, I sympathise with the Israelis. It is a horrible situation that unfortunately keeps getting out of hand. But anyway, the whole argument of 'tit for tat' is stupid. Israel should be taking the moral high ground in this situation, rather than committing war crimes on innocent civilians and carelessly attacking UN administered areas.

But I won't dismiss Israel too quickly. They certainly do not have their hands clean. In Eastern Jerusalem and Palestinian zones for example, where they're forcibly building settlements and removing innocent Palestinians from their homes (link and link).

Next, Britain, the all-mighty colonial nation that takes land as sees fit, and up until 1948 also governed Israel, decides it has the authority to handle all? I object to the very idea that anything, Anything Israel has done, qualifies as a crime of war. More like poetic justice if anything.

A little quick to poke at Britain aren't we? If you read the article then I assume you'd know that Britain are actually trying to provide safe travel for the poor fellow! And anyway, I don't remember in my lifetime of any colonial seizures made by Britain, though one could argue that Israel has done. But no point getting onto that. :)

But either way, a war crime is a war crime. Evidence has proven so. Why do you assume that Israel is the only country that can't commit war crimes? I'm certain that if any of those Hamas blokes headed on a plane to Britain, they would be arrested for war crimes too.

Oh darn, I missed International Holocaust Remembrance Day, AGAIN...
lol I never even knew they had such a thing.

What about, International Gaza Blockade Remembrance Day?

At 1/8/10 05:10 PM, Phantom wrote: Next, Britain, the all-mighty colonial nation that takes land as sees fit,

Thats stupid as saying that because the Germans killed 6 million Jews they still do it today. After WWI Britain was actually starting to be ANTI-Colonialism, with the US they tried to stop the Japanese Expansion into China, Southeast Asia and the Pacific with international treaties.

At 1/8/10 05:10 PM, Phantom wrote: and up until 1948 also governed Israel, decides it has the authority to handle all? I object to the very idea that anything, Anything Israel has done, qualifies as a crime of war. More like poetic justice if anything.

Uh no, Israel just doesn't want to send anyone because they fear they might get tried, Britain didn't assure them, because think of it, this would heavily damage its relations with other Middle Eastern countries for one.